Law Enforcement Kills Mentally Ill Person, Then Deputy Sues Family

[Little_Nemo]

There’s also the “chilling effect” issue. What will be the effect on law enforcement if people become afraid to report crimes due to a fear that they may be sued by the responding police officer if he gets injured by the criminal?

[Bricker]

@Oakminster

I would. Specifically, how likely is Plaintiff’s lawyer to get sanctioned under Rule 11 here? And why isn’t there a counterclaim for wrongful death/excessive force, etc.?
.

If this survives a Rule 56 motion, then Rule 11 is out the window.

I haven’t seen the pleading, but I cannot say that it’s impossible to plead facts which would establish liability.

[Czarcasm]

@Bricker

If this survives a Rule 56 motion, then Rule 11 is out the window.

Could you please elaborate on these rules?

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 11 governs sanctions. Basically, it says factual and legal assertions in filings must be non-frivolous and “warranted by existing law” and the facts, and the lawyer must make some effort to confirm information provided by other people.

Rule 56 is summary judgment: Bricker is saying if summary judgment is not granted, then there is at least a question of liability and the complaint cannot be frivolous.

[Czarcasm]

Thank you.

[Oakminster]

@Bricker

I haven’t seen the pleading, but I cannot say that it’s impossible to plead facts which would establish liability.

Wouldn’t the “fireman’s rule” pretty much negate liability here, unless Texas has changed or otherwise negated it?

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

Only applies to premises liability cases in Texas.

I recognize that the Fireman’s Rule has been employed in Texas only in premises liability cases. See, e.g., Peters v. Detsco, Inc., 820 S.W.2d 38, 40 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1991, writ denied). The court of appeals used this rationale in denying the Rule’s application to this case. 883 S.W.2d 286, 291. However, such a narrow interpretation of the Fireman’s Rule is not consistent with the trend in other jurisdictions to extend the Rule beyond premises liability based on public policy.

Juhl v. Airington, 936 S.W.2d 640, 647 (Tex. 1996) (Gonzalez, J., dissenting)

[Bricker]

@Czarcasm

Could you please elaborate on these rules?

RNATB covered it – basically I am saying I think it’s legally possible for some set of facts to exist that would make the officer’s suit tenable.

A lot of this is state-dependent, though, and since. Texas isn’t my state and civil law is not my forté, I was hoping to get some insights from contributions.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

Without the complaint I think we’re all just speculating. I did find a copy on the web but it seems to have lost something in the OCR translation.

[lawbuff]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

Without the complaint I think we’re all just speculating. I did find a copy on the web but it seems to have lost something in the OCR translation.

This may help.

Complaint cached

[Typo_Negative]

On this day, known to me to be the person whose signature appears on the foregoing return, personally appeared . After being by me duly sworn, he/she stated that this citation was executed by him/her in the exact manner recited on the return.

Have humans ever spoken this way?

[Little_Nemo]

@lawbuff

This may help.

Complaint cached

It just raises new questions. If I’m reading the document correctly (it has a lot of scanning errors) Marlene Yazar called 911 to ask for an ambulance and did inform the dispatcher that her husband was under the influence of drugs. And then it was the ambulance crew that called for police back-up and neglected to pass on the information about the drug use.

[Yllaria]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

. . . Workers’ compensation may “require” a party to sue to the extent that workers’ compensation is a secondary payer. In some circumstances workers’ compensation benefits may be reduced based on the employee’s refusal to recover from an at fault party. In most cases, however, the workers’ compensation carrier would simply sue on the employee’s behalf if he failed to do so.
. . . It should be noted that Texas (uniquely) has an optional workers’ compensation scheme. It’s unlikely that a municipal employer is not a participant, but probably not unheard of. Non-participating employers have no obligation to provide WC benefits but are also not immune from suit in tort.

In the unlikely event that the cop is not receiving WC benefits this would basically be something forced on him by his employer. Again, even if his bills are being paid he is still entitled to sue somebody for his non-economic damages.

I’ve never heard of WC as a secondary payer, but then I’m not an expert. We get told over and over not to go to our own doctors or use our own insurance. Go to one of the two hospitals under contract and be sure to tell them it’s WC. Supervisors have to notify WC and OSHA. (Or notify HR, who then notifies WC and OSHA.)

I have sympathy for any police force that isn’t covered. Deep and appalled sympathy. (Not to be confused with support for the suit.)

[Melchior]

This is not that simple. The guy was not ‘mentally ill’ but taking street drugs. Though I hardly support the police here, it seems that the guy deserves little sympathy. If you take that shit you are just plain stupid.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Yllaria

I’ve never heard of WC as a secondary payer, but then I’m not an expert.

Secondary payer means they get to recover outlay from at-fault parties, not that they don’t literally “pay”. It’s not the same sense of secondary payer you might be familiar with from, say, Medicaid. Any no-fault insurance policy is also considered a secondary payer in litigation.

@Melchior

This is not that simple. The guy was not ‘mentally ill’ but taking street drugs. Though I hardly support the police here, it seems that the guy deserves little sympathy. If you take that shit you are just plain stupid.

The guy who was on drugs is dead. He’s not being sued.

[Melchior]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

Secondary payer means they get to recover outlay from at-fault parties, not that they don’t literally “pay”. It’s not the same sense of secondary payer you might be familiar with from, say, Medicaid. Any no-fault insurance policy is also considered a secondary payer in litigation.

The guy who was on drugs is dead. He’s not being sued.

I know.