18
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR KENT COUNTY BRET AND PATTY SHEPARD and ) JASON, BRYAN, LOUISE AND ) C.A. No. 99C-06-030 PATRICK PAULEY, ) 00C-08-042 ) (Consolidated) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) ) KIMBERLY A . REINOEHL, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) Submitted: August 9, 2002 Decided: August 21, 2002 Richard E. Poole, Esq., Wilmington, Delaware. Attorney for Plaintiffs. George H. Seitz, III, Esq., Wilmington, Delaware. Attorney for Defendants Delaware State Police, Department of Public Safety and State of Delaware. Jeffrey M. Weiner, Esq., Wilmington, Delaware. Attorney for Defendant Reinoehl. Upon Consideration of the Motions for Summary Judgment Filed by Defendants Kimberly A. Reinoehl, Delaware State Police, Department of Public Safety and State of Delaware GRANTED VAUGHN, Resident Judge

Cooper Shepard

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

test

Citation preview

  • IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

    IN AND FOR KENT COUNTY

    BRET AND PATTY SHEPARD and )JASON, BRYAN, LOUISE AND ) C.A. No. 99C-06-030PATRICK PAULEY, ) 00C-08-042

    ) (Consolidated)Plaintiffs, )

    )v. )

    )KIMBERLY A . REINOEHL, et al., )

    )Defendants. )

    Submitted: August 9, 2002Decided: August 21, 2002

    Richard E. Poole, Esq., Wilmington, Delaware. Attorney for Plaintiffs.

    George H. Seitz, III, Esq., Wilmington, Delaware. Attorney for Defendants DelawareState Police, Department of Public Safety and State of Delaware.

    Jeffrey M. Weiner, Esq., Wilmington, Delaware. Attorney for Defendant Reinoehl.

    Upon Consideration of the Motions for Summary JudgmentFiled by Defendants Kimberly A. Reinoehl, Delaware State Police,

    Department of Public Safety and State of DelawareGRANTED

    VAUGHN, Resident Judge

  • Shepard, et al. v. Reinoehl, et al.C.A. No. 99C-06-030August 21, 2002

    2

    OPINION

    Plaintiffs Jason, Bryan, Louise and Patrick Pauley brought suit to recover for

    injuries from an auto accident. They claim that defendant Kimberly A. Reinoehl, a

    state police officer, caused the accident through negligence or gross negligence. They

    also claim that the Delaware State Police, the Department of Public Safety and the

    State of Delaware (the State or the State defendants) are liable as her employer

    and the owner of the police car. They also claim that the state police were negligent

    in the way Officer Reinoehl was trained and supervised, and that this negligence was

    itself a proximate cause of the accident. The defendants have moved for summary

    judgment. They raise issues concerning sovereign immunity, the State Tort Claims

    Act, and 21 Del. C. 4106 which pertains to authorized emergency vehicles. They

    also test the sufficiency of the evidence as it pertains to alleged gross negligence or

    willful or wanton negligence on the part of Defendant Reinoehl and alleged

    contributory negligence on the part of Louise Pauley.

    THE FACTS

    At approximately 8:15 a.m. on August 24, 1998, Louise Pauley was driving her

    automobile northbound in the center lane of State Route 1, a multilane highway, near

    its intersection with the entrance to Rehoboth Outlets, No. 3, in or near Rehoboth

    Beach, Delaware. Her sons Jason, age 12, and Bryan, age 9, and Bret Cooper

    Shepard and Andrew Lorence, both age 9, were passengers. As she approached the

    intersection, she had a green light. At the same time, Defendant Reinoehl was

    responding to an emergency call that a burglar alarm had gone off at the Outlets. She

    was driving her police cruiser southbound on State Route 1 with her emergency siren

  • Shepard, et al. v. Reinoehl, et al.C.A. No. 99C-06-030August 21, 2002

    3

    and lights turned on. Rehoboth Outlets, No. 3 lies on the east side of Route 1.

    Initially, however, Officer Reinoehl thought the location of the alarm was on the west

    side of Route 1. About a half-mile north of the intersection, she deactivated her siren.

    There is some dispute as to whether she also deactivated her police lights, but for

    purposes of this motion it will be taken as fact that she turned them off as well.

    Shortly before the intersection, she realized that Rehoboth Outlets, No. 3 was on the

    east side and moved across the several lanes of State Route 1 southbound from the

    right hand lane to the right lane of two left-hand turn lanes to make the turn into the

    Outlets. As she arrived at the intersection, several vehicles were stopped in the

    northbound lanes of Route 1, obstructing the officers view of the northbound lanes

    beyond the vehicles she could see stopped. These vehicles had apparently been

    stopped at a red light facing northbound traffic, and had not yet started moving

    although the light facing northbound traffic had turned green by the time the officer

    arrived at the intersection. A vehicle traveling in front of Mrs. Pauley in the

    northbound center lane went through intersection under the green light. The officer

    then started across the northbound lanes to the Outlets entrance. As she did so, she

    shifted her attention from the northbound lanes to the entrance to the Outlets. She did

    not see Mrs. Pauleys vehicle, which was at that time proceeding through the

    intersection. The vehicles then collided in the intersection, causing injury to Mrs.

    Pauley and her two sons and causing the death of Bret Cooper Shepard.

    STANDARD OF REVIEW

    Summary judgment should be rendered if the record shows that there is no

    genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as

  • Shepard, et al. v. Reinoehl, et al.C.A. No. 99C-06-030August 21, 2002

    1 Superior Court Civil Rule 56(c).

    2 Guy v. Judicial Nominating Commn, 659 A.2d 777, 780 (Del. Super. Ct. 1995); Figgs v. Bellevue Holding Co., 652 A.2d 1084, 1087 (Del. Super. Ct. 1994).

    3 Ebersole v. Lowengrub, 180 A.2d 467, 470 (Del. 1962).

    4 Wooten v. Kiger, 226 A.2d 238 (Del. 1967).

    5 Del. Const. art. I, 9; Shellhorn & Hill, Inc. v. State, 187 A.2d 71 (Del. 1962).

    4

    a matter of law.1 The facts must be viewed in the light most favorable to the

    nonmoving party.2 Summary judgment may not be granted if the record indicates that

    a material fact is in dispute, or if it seems desirable to inquire more thoroughly into

    the facts in order to clarify the application of the law to the circumstances.3 However,

    when the facts permit a reasonable person to draw but one inference, the question

    becomes one for decision as a matter of law.4

    SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY

    The State is immune from suit unless the General Assembly has enacted a

    statute waiving that immunity.5 The defendants have advised the Court that the State

    has self-insurance in the amount of $1,000,000 for claims arising out of this accident.

    It is the States position that sovereign immunity is waived to the extent of the

    $1,000,000 of self-insurance. The statutory basis for the waiver, the State says, is 18

    Del. C. 6511, which reads as follows:

    The defense of sovereign immunity is waived and cannotand will not be asserted as to any risk or loss covered bythe state insurance coverage program, whether same becovered by commercially procured insurance or by self-insurance, and every commercially procured insurance

  • Shepard, et al. v. Reinoehl, et al.C.A. No. 99C-06-030August 21, 2002

    6 668 A.2d 1370 (Del. 1995).

    7 The amount paid in settlement to the Shepard family and the amount remaining andavailable to the Pauley family are part of the record of this case.

    5

    contract shall contain a provision to this effect, whereappropriate.

    This provision has been discussed in a number of Supreme Court cases. A

    history of that Courts analysis of 6511 appears in the 1995 case of Turnbull v.

    Fink.6 The case reaffirms the reasoning of prior cases which held that 18 Del. C.

    6511 waives sovereign immunity where risks or losses are covered by the State

    Insurance Coverage Program. The case also restates the findings in earlier cases that

    the State Insurance Coverage Program had never come into existence. In this case I

    am content to acknowledge the States willing concession that it may be sued in this

    case to the extent of its $1,000,000 of self-insurance. The State indicates that the

    claims against the defendants based upon the officers operation of the police car are

    within that coverage. The State also indicates, however, that the claims based upon

    alleged negligent training and supervision are not within that coverage. The

    defendants do, therefore, assert the defense of sovereign immunity in full as to those

    claims. The plaintiffs have not challenged the States view that the claims based upon

    alleged negligent training and supervision are not within the coverage of the self-

    insurance. I will therefore accept as fact that those claims are not covered.

    A portion of the $1,000,000 coverage has been used to settle the Shepard

    familys claim for the death of their son.7 At oral argument, counsel for the State

  • Shepard, et al. v. Reinoehl, et al.C.A. No. 99C-06-030August 21, 2002

    8 10 Del. C. 4001- 4005.

    6

    defendants represented that the State has offered all of the remaining insurance

    coverage to settle the Pauley familys claims.

    The plaintiffs, however, contend that their claims are not limited to the States

    insurance coverage. They contend that the State Tort Claims Act8 waives sovereign

    immunity without regard to insurance coverage as to all claims against the State

    except those where the act itself preserves immunity. The act reads in relevant part

    as follows:

    Except as otherwise provided by the . . . laws . . . ofthe State, as the same may expressly require . . ., no claim. . . . shall arise . . . against the State or any public officer oremployee . . . in any civil suit . . . where the followingelements are present:

    (1) The act or omission complained of arose out ofand in connection with the performance of an official dutyrequiring a determination of policy, the interpretation orenforcement of statutes, rules or regulations, the grantingor withholding of publicly created or regulated entitlementor privilege or any other official duty involving theexercise of discretion on the part of the public officer,employee or member . . .

    (2) The act or omission complained of was done ingood faith and in the belief that the public interest wouldbest be served thereby; and

    (3) The act or omission complained of was donewithout gross or wanton negligence; . . .

  • Shepard, et al. v. Reinoehl, et al.C.A. No. 99C-06-030August 21, 2002

    9 At oral argument, counsel for the plaintiffs agreed that for purposes of this litigationOfficer Reinoehl should receive the same treatment as the State on the sovereign immunity issue.

    7

    This statute shields the State and its public officers or employees from liability where

    the act or omission complained of arises from (1) an official duty involving certain

    forms of discretion, (2) the public officer or employee acts in good faith with the

    belief that the public is best served by the act or omission, and (3) the act or omission

    is done without gross or wanton negligence. The presence of all three factors gives

    the State and the public officer or employee statutory immunity, but if any one of the

    three factors is absent, the act itself provides no immunity at all. The burden of

    proving the absence of one of the three elements is on the claimant.

    The plaintiffs contend that the first factor is absent because driving a vehicle

    is a ministerial act, not a discretionary act as that term is used in the statute. The

    defendants, or at least the State defendants, concede this issue.9 The plaintiffs also

    contend that Officer Reinoehl drove with gross or wanton negligence. The act does

    not bar claims based upon gross or wanton negligence. The plaintiffs also contend

    that the training and supervision of state police officers is ministerial in nature, not

    discretionary, or at least that there are disputed, material facts as to that issue which

    preclude summary judgment at this time.

    The view advocated by the plaintiffs, however, is a misconception of the nature

    of the State Tort Claims Act. The act was enacted not to waive sovereign immunity,

    but to establish statutory limitations on civil liability of the State and its officers and

  • Shepard, et al. v. Reinoehl, et al.C.A. No. 99C-06-030August 21, 2002

    10 499 A.2d 1175 (Del. 1985).

    11 Id. 1179-1181.

    12 488 F. Supp. 775 (Dist. Del. 1980).

    13 1999 Del. LEXIS 401 (Del. Super. Ct. 1999).

    8

    employees where the General Assembly by some separate act waives sovereign

    immunity. This principle was authoritatively stated by then Justice Christie in Doe

    v. Cates,10 as follows:

    Appellants also claim that the State Tort Claims Act . . .provides for a waiver of all sovereign immunity exceptsuch sovereign immunity as is specifically preserved in thatact. We find no merit to this contention.

    * * *

    The title of the bill speaks of limiting civil liability. It doesnot mention sovereign immunity at all.

    * * *

    In keeping with the purpose of the State Tort Claims Act,this Court holds that 4001 must be applied to limit theStates liability where it has, by some means independentof 10 Del. C. 4001, waived immunity.11

    Judge Stapleton expressed a similar view in the earlier case of Space Age Products,

    Inc. v. Gilliam.12

    This principal was succinctly stated by Judge Quillen in the case of Stevenson

    v. Brandywine School District.13 as follows:

  • Shepard, et al. v. Reinoehl, et al.C.A. No. 99C-06-030August 21, 2002

    9

    The doctrine of sovereign immunity provides that the Statecannot be sued without its consent. (citing Doe). The onlyway the State can waive its sovereign immunity is by act ofthe General Assembly. Id. For the Plaintiff in this action toprevail, she must overcome two hurdles. First, the Statemust be said to have waived the defense of sovereignimmunity for the actions mentioned in the Complaint.Second the Plaintiff must prove that the State Tort ClaimsAct, 10 Del. C. 4001-05, does not bar the action.

    The plaintiffs claims that Officer Reinoehl was improperly trained and

    supervised do not get past the first hurdle. No statutory enactment has been identified

    in which the General Assembly has waived sovereign immunity for claims arising

    from the way the State Police trains and supervises its officers. Since the General

    Assembly has not waived sovereign immunity as to the plaintiffs claims that Officer

    Reinoehl was not properly trained or supervised, summary judgment on those claims

    must be granted.

    As to the claims based upon the officers alleged improper driving, the

    plaintiffs get past the first hurdle to the extent of the remaining self-insurance based

    upon the States non-assertion of sovereign immunity for that amount. They are

    limited to the amount of the remaining self-insurance, however, unless they can show

    that a statute contains a waiver of sovereign immunity in excess of that amount. They

    contend that 21 Del. C. 4106 is such a statute.

    It reads in relevant part as follows:

    (a) The driver of an authorized emergency vehicle,when responding to an emergency call or when in thepursuit of an actual or suspected violator of the law or

  • Shepard, et al. v. Reinoehl, et al.C.A. No. 99C-06-030August 21, 2002

    10

    when responding to but not upon returning from a firealarm, may exercise the privileges set forth in this section,but subject to the conditions herein stated.

    (b) The driver of an authorized emergency vehiclemay:

    (1) Park or stand, irrespective of theprovisions of this chapter;

    (2) Proceed past a red or stop signal or stopsign, but only after slowing down as may be necessary forsafe operation;

    (3) Exceed the speed limits so long as thedriver does not endanger life or property;

    (4) Disregard regulations governing directionof movement or turning in specified directions.

    (c) The exemptions herein granted to an authorizedemergency vehicle shall apply only when such vehicle ismaking use of audible or visual signals meeting therequirements of this title, except that an authorizedemergency vehicle operated as a police vehicle need notmake use of such signals.

    (d) The driver of an emergency vehicle is not liablefor any damage to or loss of property or for any personalinjury or death caused by the negligent or wrongful act oromission of such driver except acts or omissionsamounting to gross negligence or willful or wantonnegligence so long as the applicable portions of subsection(c) have been followed. The owner of such emergency

  • Shepard, et al. v. Reinoehl, et al.C.A. No. 99C-06-030August 21, 2002

    14 Green v. Millsboro Fire Co., Inc., 385 A.2d 1135 (Del. Super. Ct. 1978).

    11

    vehicle may not assert the defense of governmentalimmunity in any action on account of any damage to orloss of property or on account of personal injury or deathcaused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission ofsuch driver or owner.

    (e) Authorized emergency vehicles . . . mean . . .police vehicles.

    Officer Reinoehl was clearly driving an authorized emergency vehicle at the time of

    the accident. The plaintiffs contend that the second sentence of subsection (d), which

    prohibits the owner of the vehicle from asserting the defense of governmental

    immunity, is an unlimited waiver of sovereign immunity where people are injured by

    negligent drivers of state owned emergency vehicles.

    This contention requires a brief review of the history of the authorized

    emergency vehicle statute. When originally enacted, subsection (d) read as follows:

    (d) The foregoing provisions shall not relieve the driver ofan authorized emergency vehicle from the duty to drivewith due regard for the safety of all persons, nor shall suchprovisions protect the driver from the consequences of hisreckless disregard for the safety of others.

    On April 7, 1978 a case was decided in this Court which held that a volunteer fireman

    for the Millsboro Fire Company was liable for negligence for causing an accident

    while driving a fire truck to a fire.14 On July 11, 1978 an amendment to subsection

  • Shepard, et al. v. Reinoehl, et al.C.A. No. 99C-06-030August 21, 2002

    15 61 Del. Laws, c. 461.

    16 Bradely v. New Castle County, 1983 Del. LEXIS 695, (Del. Super. Ct. 1983).

    17 Apparently there was no allegation that the officers alleged negligence was gross orwillful or wanton.

    18 10 Del C. 4010- 4013.

    12

    (d) was approved, which changed (d) to its current form.15 The subsection now limits

    the liability of drivers to gross negligence or willful or wanton negligence. While

    there is no express documentation linking the 1978 case with the amendment, given

    the timing of the case and the amendment, it is reasonable to infer that the case had

    a bearing on the passage of the amendment.

    In 1983, this Court had occasion to discuss revised subsection (d) in a case

    involving New Castle County.16 A county policeman in a county owned police car

    was in hot pursuit of a fleeing motorcyclist. The chase ended when the motorcyclist

    crashed into another vehicle. An injured passenger on the motorcycle sued the

    county, claiming that the accident was caused by negligence on the part of the police

    officer.17 The county acknowledged that it could not assert governmental immunity

    as a defense to a claim for injuries based on the officers negligence, but argued that

    it could not be vicariously liable under respondeat superior where the employee had

    no liability. Noting that the County and Municipal Tort Claims Act18 expressly

    provides that a county is liable for a negligent act causing injury in the use of a

    county owned vehicle, the Court rejected the countys contention, and held that the

    county was still subject to suit for the policemans ordinary negligence, although the

  • Shepard, et al. v. Reinoehl, et al.C.A. No. 99C-06-030August 21, 2002

    19 Rohrer v. Faries, 1990 Del. LEXIS 401 (Del. Super. Ct. 1990).

    20 The act also covers registered volunteer fire companies.

    13

    policeman was not. The State here agrees that it is liable for negligent driving to the

    extent of the limits of the self-insurance.

    The Court also briefly touched on subsection (d) in a case involving a fire

    policeman.19 There, the Court held that the fire policemans properly equipped,

    privately owned vehicle was an authorized emergency vehicle, rejecting a contention

    that the term only applies to fire company owned vehicles. The Court observed that

    the second sentence of subsection (d) meant that the protections afforded by the

    statute were limited to drivers, not owners, a limitation consistent with 10 Del. C.

    4012 of the County and Municipal Tort Claims Act20 and the requirement that

    vehicles be insured.

    I am not persuaded that the 1978 amendment must or should be given the scope

    advocated by plaintiffs. If the General Assembly intended to waive sovereign

    immunity completely and expose the State to unlimited liability for injuries caused

    by emergency vehicles, it could have chosen far more direct language to express that

    intent. Why the General Assembly would chose to expand a waiver of sovereign

    immunity in an amendment, the apparent purpose of which was to grant immunity

    from negligence to the driver, is a question with no ready answer. The most

    reasonable explanation for the government immunity language in the amendment

    to subsection (d) is that it was intended simply to clarify that the grant of immunity

    from negligence was personal to the driver only, and not meant to apply to a

  • Shepard, et al. v. Reinoehl, et al.C.A. No. 99C-06-030August 21, 2002

    21 The plaintiffs urge the Court to consider the case of Carter v. McLaughlin, 2000 Del.LEXIS 162 (Del. 2000). However, the decision in that case was vacated. 758 A.2d 933.

    22 The Court also notes that the opening phrase of the State Tort Claims Act, 4001,expressly subordinates that section to the express requirements of other statutes, such as, in thiscase, the authorized emergency vehicle statute which predicates a drivers liability on grossnegligence or willful or wanton negligence.

    23 The plaintiffs argue in their brief that the officer is liable for ordinary negligence if herconduct does not fall within one of the four privileges set forth in subsection (b) of the authorizedemergency vehicle statute, citing Curtis v. Martelli, 1996 Del. LEXIS 23, (Del. Super. Ct. 1996). In that case, the plaintiff claimed that the emergency vehicle driver was negligent eight differentways. The Court stated that three of the grounds of negligence were within the privileges andwere subject to a gross, willful or wanton negligence standard, but that five of them were not andwere subject to an ordinary negligence standard. The five are not set out in the opinion. Subsection (b) simply gives drivers of emergency vehicles the privilege of disregarding the rulesof the road under some circumstances. In any event, under the plain language of subsection (d),

    14

    government entity which, without the amendment, was subject to suit for the drivers

    negligence. I rule that subsection (d) does not waive sovereign immunity for any

    amount in excess of the States self-insurance. Summary judgment for the moving

    defendants will be granted on condition that the State tender the Pauley plaintiffs the

    full, remaining amount of its self-insurance.21

    GROSS, WILLFUL OR WANTON NEGLIGENCE

    Officer Reinoehl has also moved for summary judgment on the grounds that,

    as a matter of law, her conduct does not amount to gross negligence or wanton or

    willful negligence.

    Officer Reinoehls liability is governed by the express terms of the authorized

    emergency vehicle statute.22 Under subsection (d) she is not liable if her conduct was

    merely negligent. Gross negligence or willful or wanton negligence is required.23

  • Shepard, et al. v. Reinoehl, et al.C.A. No. 99C-06-030August 21, 2002

    the driver of an authorized emergency vehicle is not liable for ordinary negligence, and to theextent the plaintiffs contend that the officer is liable for ordinary negligence, their contention isrejected.

    15

    There is evidence in the record that the officers lights and siren were both off

    as the officer approached the intersection on Route 1 southbound. Debra Doucette

    described the officers driving as follows:

    Q: Can you tell me in your own words what you rememberabout the accident or the events leading up to the accident?

    A: I was approaching Route 1 at the intersection withAtlantic Liquors and as I was turning onto Route 1 thepolice vehicle Im not sure whether the light was greenor red for them, but came through at what I considered adangerous rate of speed for the summertime, and with nolights, no siren, and in my mind I said Hes going to killsomebody, not knowing that the officer was a woman.And the police vehicle proceeded down the road at what Ithought was a high rate of speed. And I continued ondown the road approaching the intersection where theaccident took place. I heard the noise of an accident. Andwhen I approached the light where the accident was, I sawthe overturned vehicle, the police cruiser, and bodies on theground.

    * * *Q: You also made the statement something to the effect and please correct me if Im wrong that hes going to killsomebody. What made you say that to yourself?

    A: Its just what went through my mind when the vehicle

  • Shepard, et al. v. Reinoehl, et al.C.A. No. 99C-06-030August 21, 2002

    16

    passed me. I just had this shiver that went through me thatsomething was going to happen.

    In another answer she testified that the officer was going too fast without

    warning on the vehicle for anybody to be aware that the vehicle was coming at you,

    to get out of their way.

    Michael DiGangi, an eyewitness to the accident, said the officer was traveling

    quite fast as she came down Route 1 southbound. He also said that the officer was

    traveling about 30 miles per hour as she made her left turn across the northbound

    lanes. Peter Bercik, another eyewitness, saw the officer approach, enter the

    intersection and make her left turn. He said the officer did not come to a stop at the

    intersection and was traveling about 30 miles per hour from the time he first saw her

    vehicle until the point of impact.

    Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, the officer

    traveled down Route 1 southbound quite fast, or too fast, in Ms. Doucettes view,

    without emergency flashers or a siren. As she neared the intersection, she moved

    from the right hand lane across the middle and left lanes into a left hand turn lane.

    She remained in continuous motion, and by the time she began her left turn, had

    slowed to approximately 30 miles per hour. At the time there were several vehicles

    stopped facing northbound. There is no evidence that the officer saw the plaintiffs

    vehicle before the accident, or at least no evidence that she saw it before it was too

    late, and I do not think that a reasonable juror could infer that she did.

    Gross negligence has been defined as a higher level of negligence representing

  • Shepard, et al. v. Reinoehl, et al.C.A. No. 99C-06-030August 21, 2002

    24 Browne v. Robb, 583 A.2d 949, 953 (Del. 1990).

    25 Jardel Co., Inc. v. Hughes, 523 A.2d 518, 530 (Del. 1987); 11 Del. C. 231(d).

    26 McHugh v. Brown, 125 A.2d 583, 586 (Del. 1956).

    17

    an extreme departure from the ordinary standard of care.24 It is the functional

    equivalent of criminal negligence, which is defined as failure to perceive a risk of

    harm of such a nature and degree that failure to perceive it constitutes a gross

    deviation from the standard of conduct that a reasonable person would observe in that

    situation.25 The words willful or wanton are not ordinarily used to describe a form

    of negligence, but where they are, as here, they refer to a lack of care involving a

    conscious indifference to consequences in circumstances where probability of harm

    to another is reasonably apparent, an I-dont-care-a-bit-what-happens attitude.26

    They imply a degree of negligence higher than gross negligence. Summary judgment

    is appropriate only if the evidence viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff

    will not support a jury finding of either gross negligence or willful or wanton

    negligence.

    When the officer reached the intersection, she had slowed down to about 30

    miles per hour. She looked at the northbound traffic, saw cars stopped and thought

    the intersection was clear to cross. While she may have been negligent and exercised

    mistaken judgment, I do not think a reasonable juror could conclude that her conduct

    amounted to gross negligence, or willful or wanton negligence, which proximately

    caused the accident. Therefore, summary judgment will be granted to defendant

    Reinoehl on this ground as well. The issue of Louise Pauleys alleged contributory

  • Shepard, et al. v. Reinoehl, et al.C.A. No. 99C-06-030August 21, 2002

    18

    negligence will be addressed in a separate order.

    THEREFORE, the State defendants motion for summary judgment is

    granted, subject to the State tendering to the Pauley plaintiffs all of the remaining

    self-insurance. Defendant Reinoehls motion for summary judgment is granted.

    IT IS SO ORDERED.

    _________________________Resident Judge

    oc: Prothonotarycc: Order Distribution