Emergency responder ruling could open floodgates

Listen to this article

A ruling from Wisconsin’s highest court has opened up the door for more potential litigation against emergency responders who are involved in a crash while on the job, attorneys for both sides say.

The court, in a 4-3 decision in Legue v. City of Racine ruled that police Officer Amy Matsen’s conduct while driving to the scene of an accident did not fall under the state law generally allowing for an emergency responder’s discretionary immunity from suit. The justices reversed the circuit court’s decision and found in favor of motorist Eileen Legue, saying that Matsen’s conduct was not “discretionary,” but rather “ministerial” and that she failed to give “due regard under the circumstances.”

Attorneys for Legue and the city of Racine said Friday that the court’s ruling meant it would be easier to bring lawsuits against municipalities for crashes.

“It at least gives them the opportunity to look at the facts instead of blanket immunity,” said Timothy Knurr of Gruber Law Offices LLC, Milwaukee, who represented Legue.

And while Knurr said he thinks this won’t have a huge effect since he said there aren’t that many crashes involving emergency responders, defense attorney Thomas Devine, who represented city of Racine, said the decision would open the floodgates to a lot of lawsuits.

“I think immunity disappeared when you’re driving a car,” Devine, an attorney with Hostak, Henzl & Bilcher SC, Racine, said. “This will create an issue fact every time a municipality is involved in an emergency response.”

According to the opinion, Matsen was speeding to the scene of a car crash but slowed down to 27 mph when she got to an intersection with a red light. When Matsen went into the intersection, motorist Eileen Legue – who had a green light – failed to see Matsen’s patrol car lights or hear her sirens and horn, and struck Matsen’s car.

Both were injured, and Legue sued. Jurors later found both women negligent, though they awarded Legue $129,799.72. However, Racine County Circuit Judge Charles Constantine took the verdict away and said Matsen was eligible for discretionary immunity, court documents show.

The Court of Appeals certified the case in October.

Knurr and Devine both said the high court’s decision didn’t show a lot of guidance for future cases.

“They didn’t set out … a nice bright line [saying] what are the exceptions,” Knurr said. “All they really did is state you have to exercise due regard.”

Justice Annette Ziegler, in a dissent joined by Justices Ann Walsh Bradley and Pat Roggensack, said she was concerned the ruling will make it possible for anyone involved in an accident with an emergency responder to argue that the responder didn’t exercise “due regard” and therefore is not immune from being sued.

Devine echoed that dissent, saying that these cases will likely all go to trial in the future.

“That’s the problem,” he said. “There is nothing in the decision that lays out a framework for determining the presence of immunity or absence of immunity.”

The Associated Press also contributed to this report.