Another Example of a "Good Shoot" That Leads to Civil Litigation

[Alaric]

Some of you may remember the case of the off-duty San Diego Police officer who got involved in a road rage incident with a drunk and ended up firing shots. He wound up shooting the perp and (accidentally) her 8 year old son (both wounded). The perp was convicted of drunken driving and child endangerment, while the officer was cleared by his department's internal investigation, criminal charges, and is now back on duty. However, today, the City of San Diego paid half a million dollars to the boy that was injured accidentally in this self-defense case.

That's my take on it.

Read the story for yourself: http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2...rage-incident/

[bill_k_lopez]

Off duty officer involved in road-rage incident, fires shots, hits and injures an innocent bystander who is 8 - and you have a problem with the city's liability with this?

Just with the limited information, if this was your spouse playing the role of drunk with your child - you wouldn't see the city as having ANY liability in this?

Come on....

[Riodog]

Don't really care about specifics but off duty "police officer" should have used better judgement in situation such as this. Left, called backup, taken notes, etc. If life was in danger-> kill um all!! But this was not the case.
Rio

[smokeysbandit]

If my wife was driving drunk with my child in the seat I would place responsibility with my wife. Had she not been driving drunk, threatening an officers life, no shots would have been fired. Sucks for the kid, but the mother is to blame.

[GaryV]

Always be sure of your target and what is beyond it. It doesn't matter if you mean to hit an innocent bystander or not - do it and you're liable for damages. While the act of shooting in self-defense is makes shooting the drunk a "good shoot", the shooting of the child, intentional or not, is not. So he's not being sued for the good shoot, he's being sued for the negligent one.

[smokeysbandit]

Always be sure of your target and what is beyond it. It doesn't matter if you mean to hit an innocent bystander or not - do it and you're liable for damages. While the act of shooting in self-defense is makes shooting the drunk a "good shoot", the shooting of the child, intentional or not, is not. So he's not being sued for the good shoot, he's being sued for the negligent one.

From a legal standpoint you are probably correct. I still feel morally the mother is at fault.

[Alaric]

Off duty officer involved in road-rage incident, fires shots, hits and injures an innocent bystander who is 8 - and you have a problem with the city's liability with this?

Just with the limited information, if this was your spouse playing the role of drunk with your child - you wouldn't see the city as having ANY liability in this?

Come on....

Regardless of whether he was justified or not in shooting, why should the taxpayers be held liable for the off-duty actions of a cop?

As for the kid who got hit, while I sympathize with his plight, he doesn't deserve our money. He should sue his mom for subjecting him to the lawful actions of a citizen defending himself and his wife.

[socalblue]

They settled for less than the estimated cost (Along with the unknown outcome) of going to court. Pure risk management at work.

[Kid Stanislaus]

I can't understand why the city had any liability at all. The cop was OFF DUTY and if you or I had acted the same way under those circumstances we'd be in the slammer right now. The cop shudd've shouldered the entire responsibility himself, making payments to the boy out of every paycheck until the day he retires. "Good shoot" my foot!!

[Scott Connors]

I can't understand why the city had any liability at all. The cop was OFF DUTY and if you or I had acted the same way under those circumstances we'd be in the slammer right now. The cop shudd've shouldered the entire responsibility himself, making payments to the boy out of every paycheck until the day he retires.

In civil liability cases like this the courts are less concerned about parsing blame for the incident than they are in trying to "set things right," so they look for "deep pockets:" someone who has the money that they can pin part of this on. Since the officer in question was probably required to carry off duty by department policy, and he was negligent, that put the city on the hook, since otherwise the kid's injuries and medical bills would go untreated and unpaid. I'm not saying that I agree with this, only that I understand the outcome.

[tyrist]

I can't understand why the city had any liability at all. The cop was OFF DUTY and if you or I had acted the same way under those circumstances we'd be in the slammer right now. The cop shudd've shouldered the entire responsibility himself, making payments to the boy out of every paycheck until the day he retires.

You really have no idea of how these things work.

First; even off duty almost all depts put requirements for off duty carry. This naturally causes the dept to have liability even off duty. If you put out an order to Officers saying you can only carry these firearms and this type of ammo off duty you have now completely assumed liability.

Second; a normal sane person who did the same thing would NOT be in the slammer right now.

Let this be a lesson to all would be CCW people. You may avoid criminal charges in a good shoot but if you hit an innocent you will be on the hook for huge sums of money.

[Anchors]

Personally, I don't think any "road rage" is a good shoot unless they force you off the road.

If you can drive away, why are you shooting?

[stix213]

Is there something left out of the article? I didn't see anything in the article to warrant opening fire.

[Crazed_SS]

Second time this has happened. City of Coronado got sued after the cop who shot retired Chargers Linebacker Steve Foley was found not guilty. The city had to pay out a couple million. IIRC, the cities here in SD County have a joint insurance policy for this type of thing. Im guessing the County's premium should be through the roof now lol.

[2Bear]

Is there something left out of the article? I didn't see anything in the article to warrant opening fire.

Yeah, seems like road rage indeed. Was it deemed assault with a deadly weapon, the weapon being her Honda?

White told investigators he pointed his off-duty weapon, a .38-caliber revolver, to get Silva to back off.

She backed up in her Honda, causing her side mirror to hit the officer’s side mirror and causing other damage. The officer fired through his own closed window, hitting the boy.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2...rage-incident/

He brandished a gun at her in lieu of waving a badge?