Can a Police Officer Sue?
A police officer assumes risk on the job. However, they do have a limited right to sue a criminal suspect for certain actions. The suspect’s actions themselves must meet certain legal qualifications for resolution in a court of law.
A Limited Right To Sue
The Firefighter’s Rule is a common-law creation of the courts that traces its origin back to such legal principles as the assumption of risk and the last clear chance doctrine. This rule is actually not a license to sue; rather, it is meant to limit legal recourse available to first responders.
Basically, the firefighter’s rule states that people in dangerous professions entered that line of work knowing that their personal safety would be at risk so they cannot sue for injuries sustained while on duty. For example, a fireman is likely to encounter fire on a normal workday and cannot sue for compensation if he sustains burn injuries at work.
While this rule was originally written with firemen in mind, it has been expanded to include police officers, paramedics and other first responders. There are exceptions to this rule, such as:
- Willful acts to cause harm
- Failure to warn the officer of known dangers
- Recklessness
- Gross negligence
Moreover, certain states have codified their exceptions to this rule as well, such as California (California Civil Code § 1714.9), New York (General Obligation Law § 11-106 and General Municipal Law § 205-a) and Minnesota (Minnesota Statute § 604.6).
Therefore, so long as the officer can show, through direct or circumstantial evidence, that the defendant’s conduct met the requisite level of deliberateness (mens rea or evil intent requirement), they may proceed with a meritorious claim against the suspect. But the next question is, should they?
Reasons Not To Sue
Even if there are some situations where a police officer can sue a suspect, it might not be wise to do so. Police officers are expected to face dangerous situations and violent individuals. Not everyone who applies for this role is granted the job. They have to be selected from a pool of fit candidates and be capable of handling anything that will be thrown at them. Police officers also undergo rigorous training before entering into this dangerous line of work. The daily risk they face is taken into consideration when their compensation is calculated.
By entering into a suit against the defendant, it is reasonable to assume that the officer waives certain protections like:
- Their sovereign immunity
- Qualified immunity
- The Heck bar
This says nothing of fact that the defendant is probably already facing charges and could be spending time in prison or paying a considerable amount of money on legal fees — thus making the likelihood of a comprehensive payout fraught with unpredictability. It’s common knowledge that lawyers don’t like taking on cases they don’t expect to win so you might have trouble even finding a lawyer to represent you.
Additionally, police officers have options available to them outside of suing the defendant who committed a wrongful act — and they should explore those options prior to pursuing litigation. Our legal system does not favor one-sidedness and a defendant can sue as well via a cross-claim. Other options a police officer may consider include:
- Sue the city for negligence
- Charge the suspect with battery
Still Want To Sue the Suspect?
Not all states follow the same logic when it comes to identifying the exceptions to the firemen’s rule. For example, New York has all but abolished it. According to a New York Police and Firefighter Injury Lawyer, a police officer could sue for injuries caused as the result of negligence by private defendants.
Since the ability to sue a suspect varies by state, the process could quickly become complicated. If you’re a police officer who’s been injured by a suspect, you should consult with your attorney to determine the full scope of your right to sue.
Disclaimer
The information contained in South Florida Reporter is for general information purposes only.
The South Florida Reporter assumes no responsibility for errors or omissions in the contents of the Service.
In no event shall the South Florida Reporter be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or incidental damages or any damages whatsoever, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tort, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Service or the contents of the Service. The Company reserves the right to make additions, deletions, or modifications to the contents of the Service at any time without prior notice.
The Company does not warrant that the Service is free of viruses or other harmful components
