The phrase you’re looking for is “gobs of liquid cash”.
This was my understanding too. In this case, maybe the plaintiff’s lawyer should see if the “bad cop” has any “PRIOR INCIDENTSS”. I bet he does. In that case, sue the city for failing to take action, sue the city for hiring him in the first place, sue the city for letting him stay on the force, and grossly increase the size of the lawsuit.
This.
A lawsuit like this tends to not be a subtle affair. I’m sure the plaintiff threw the kitchen sink at the city and the defendant in the original suit. Failure to train and supervise is standard language in such things. But by the end the city was ruled to not be part of the suit. To know exactly why that happened you would probably have to look at the written ruling. That may or may not be easy to find depending on the state.
Indemnification doesn’t really have anything to do with the plaintiff. It’s really more of a benefit to the employee.If I am sued for actions taken in my official capacity, as long as I am acting within the scope of my authority agency will indemnify me. The AG’s office will defend me and the state will pay any settlement or award - although an award for legal fees would be unusual since in my experience, lawyers generally take this sort of case on a contingency fee basis. If I exceed the scope of my authority, the AG will not defend me, I will have to get my own lawyer and pay any awards myself.
My employer is never named in the suit because a state can only be sued in situations where it has waived sovereign immunity- I do not know if the state can extend that immunity to cities, counties etc
It may also signal to thugs that they themselves, and not the city’s deep pockets, are at risk as a result of their actions.
Would a thug tone down his violence if a lawsuit could bankrupt him personally?
Would he be more brazen if he knew the city would take the financial loss?
The city can still sue the cop for contribution. IOW, let’s say that you are pulled over for running a stop sign and the cop just beats you senseless without provocation, and you win $1 million from the city. Whether you win based on a vicarious liability theory or a negligent training, hiring, and supervision theory, the city can sue the cop for the $1 million it had to pay out.
They generally don’t do this because the voters won’t like their tax dollars paying thousands in legal fees to get a judgment that they will likely never collect.
Just to clarify in layman’s terms:
Vicarious Liability: Victim sues Employer directly for something Employee did. Employer is on the hook for damages. Employer pays Victim.
Indemnity: Victim sues Employee for something Employee did. Employee is on the hook for damages. Employer is obliged to give Employee enough money to pay Victim. If Employer does not give Employee money, Employee can sue Employer. Victim cannot sue Employer directly, and has no rights against Employer.
I think that cities and counties draw their existence from the state constitution and thus are also covered by sovereign immunity. Again, though, not my area of law, and this is a WAG more than anything.
I’m pretty fuzzy on this as well since its been well over a decade since I’ve had to look at any of this, but I think it varies by state. Virginia is pretty strong on sovereign immunity and it applies to Counties and to a lesser extent cities. From what I recall from a local government lecture a long time ago, other states don’t do it that way.
This is why some kind of universal insurance would probably make a lot more sense than current liability law.
A person who is harmed by a poor person is just as deserving of compensation as a person who is harmed by a rich person, but that’s not the outcome we get with liability.
It does vary from state to state. West Virginia (which literally had the same common law as Virginia until 1863 because they were the same state) didn’t abrogate municipal immunity until 1974. Then it was a free for all until 1986 when the legislature granted limited immunity. You can still sue cities, but no punitive damages (unless the conduct is “beyond the bounds of all civilized decency” or some such language) and no joint and several liability.