Murphy v. Gallegos
Categories
Judges
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Personal injury and municipal/police vehicle liability arising from a traffic collision during an emergency police response.
The Supreme Court, Kings County, granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissed the complaint, finding that the police officer's conduct was governed by Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104(e) [limits liability for drivers of authorized emergency vehicles engaged in specified emergency driving privileges to conduct showing reckless disregard for the safety of others] and did not amount to reckless disregard.
Nothing was overturned; the Appellate Division affirmed the order dismissing the complaint.
The majority held that the officer's U-turn was privileged conduct under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104(b)(4) [permits emergency vehicles to disregard regulations governing direction of movement or turning in specified directions], so the reckless-disregard standard applied rather than ordinary negligence. The defendants showed that the officer moved very slowly, was responding to a fight call, looked for traffic, and at most made a momentary lapse in judgment. Conflicting evidence about turret lights, and the absence of horn or siren use, did not create a triable issue because Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104(c) [exempts police vehicles from audible signal and light requirements while in motion during an emergency operation] did not require those warnings here.
Background
At about 6:00 a.m. on May 29, 2016, Vera Murphy was driving southbound on White Plains Road in the Bronx when her vehicle collided with a marked police vehicle driven by Officer David Gallegos. White Plains Road had one travel lane in each direction, double yellow center lines, and parking lanes on both sides. Gallegos was parked in the southbound parking lane and had received a radio call about a physical fight in progress. A double-parked sport utility vehicle was next to his patrol car, partially obstructing his path and view. Gallegos attempted to make a U-turn from the parking lane into the northbound lane by slowly edging forward in front of the double-parked vehicle. Murphy's vehicle, traveling straight in the southbound lane, struck the front passenger side of the police vehicle. Murphy sued for personal injuries.
Lower Court Decision
The Supreme Court, Kings County, granted summary judgment to the defendants and dismissed the complaint. It accepted the defendants' argument that because the officer was operating an authorized emergency vehicle during an emergency operation and was engaging in exempt turning conduct, liability could be imposed only upon proof of reckless disregard, not ordinary negligence. The court found that standard was not met.
Appellate Division Reversal
There was no reversal. The Appellate Division affirmed. The majority concluded that the defendants established prima facie that Gallegos did not act with reckless disregard for the safety of others. His testimony showed he 'crept' forward, kept looking, and never exceeded about five miles per hour. The court characterized any mistake as, at most, a momentary lapse of judgment. Murphy's testimony that she did not see the police vehicle before impact, the lack of horn or siren, and the dispute over whether turret lights were activated were insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact. Justice Dowling dissented, joined by Justice Brathwaite Nelson, reasoning that factual issues existed as to whether Gallegos looked toward the lane he was entering and whether he took adequate precautions before turning across the front of the double-parked vehicle.
Legal Significance
The decision reinforces that when a police officer, while engaged in an emergency operation, performs conduct specifically privileged by Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104(b), courts apply the heightened reckless-disregard standard rather than ordinary negligence. It also underscores that slow speed, caution, and partial precautionary measures can defeat liability on summary judgment even when the officer misjudges traffic. In addition, the case confirms that failure to use a siren or horn, and disputes over emergency lights, will not necessarily create liability because police vehicles are exempt from certain warning-signal requirements while in motion under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104(c).
A plaintiff challenging an emergency police driving maneuver such as a U-turn must show more than negligence; absent evidence of conscious indifference to a highly probable risk of harm, New York courts may dismiss the claim under the reckless-disregard standard.