Keshia Gwathney v City of Buffalo
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Municipal liability for police emergency vehicle operation under the reckless disregard standard.
Granted the City's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the complaint.
The grant of summary judgment to the City and the dismissal of the complaint.
Plaintiff raised triable issues of fact about the officer’s speed and whether the siren was activated as required by department policy, which could support a finding of reckless disregard under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104 (e) [reckless disregard standard governing liability for authorized emergency vehicles engaged in conduct exempted by § 1104(b)] and § 1104 (b) [exempts authorized emergency vehicles from certain rules of the road during an emergency operation, including exceeding speed limits and disregarding regulations governing directions of movement].
Background
A City of Buffalo police officer responding to a radio dispatch to assist another officer approached plaintiff’s vehicle from behind in a residential area, traveling in excess of 50 mph. The officer attempted to pass plaintiff on the left by entering the oncoming lane just as plaintiff began a left turn onto an intersecting road, resulting in a collision. The City moved for summary judgment, arguing the officer was in an emergency operation and did not act with reckless disregard.
Lower Court Decision
Supreme Court, Erie County (Justice Edward Pace) granted the City’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed the complaint, concluding the officer’s conduct did not, as a matter of law, rise to reckless disregard while engaged in an emergency operation.
Appellate Division Reversal
The Appellate Division unanimously reversed on the law, denied the motion, and reinstated the complaint. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff, the court found triable issues of fact regarding the officer’s speed and whether his siren was operating as required by department policy, precluding summary judgment under the reckless disregard standard.
Legal Significance
The decision underscores that even under the heightened reckless disregard standard applicable to emergency vehicle operations, municipalities are not entitled to summary judgment where material disputes exist about key facts such as speed and use of warning devices (e.g., sirens) required by policy. Compliance with policies and the presence of adequate warnings remain critical to assessing potential reckless disregard, leaving such questions for the factfinder.
Emergency vehicle exemptions do not automatically shield municipalities; disputed facts about speed and siren use can create jury questions on reckless disregard, defeating summary judgment.