A St. Louis police officer was speeding the wrong way down a one-way street when

Question

A St. Louis police officer was speeding the wrong way down a one-way street when he collided with a vehicle being driven by Ann Martin. Martin was seriously injured in the crash and brought a lawsuit against the police officer, the City of St. Louis, and the board of police commissioners. The board of commissioners is an agency of the state of Missouri. Martin passed away, and her daughter, Kimberly Hodges, took over as the plaintiff in the case. The case was settled in relation to the board and the officer but not the city. The City of St Louis argued that the officer could not be employed by both the board and the city at the same time. The city further argued that the officer's real employer was the board, so it, the city, could not be held liable under the doctrine of vicarious liability. Why should the city be held liable under the doctirne of vicarious liability? Explain. Hodges v. City of St. Louis, 217 S.W.3d 278 (Mo. 2007)

Explanation / Answer

Case summary

A police officer of St Louis was driving on a one way street without lights and sirens in the wrong way. Ann Martin was driving in the opposite direction (in the right direction of the one way street) and was hit by the police car, causing an accident. Ann Martin subsequently filed a personal injury suit against Willie Walker (the policeman in question), the city of St Louis and the Board of Police Commissioners. The incident happened in March 2003. In 2005, Ann Martin unfortunately passed away and her daughter Kimberly Hodges became the substitute plaintiff.

The Issue

In this, the case was settled in relation to the policeman and the Board of Police Commissioners. The City of St Louis argued that it cannot be sued since the policeman was an employee of the Board and hence the city cannot be sued under the doctrine of vicarious liability.

Lets understand what the doctrine of vicarious liability states. Vicarious liability is a situation where an employer (in a workplace context) is held liable for the actions of its employees, especially if the act happened while the employee is in duty. In this case, the city of St Louis argued that since the policeman is an employee of the board and not the city, the liabilities fall only on the board and not on the city.

Why should the city be held liable?

Under Chapter 84 Police Departments in St Louis and Kansas City, Section 84.010 to 84.340, members of the police force of St Louis are mentioned as officers of the city of St Louis. By this statute, a dual agency relationship is created for the police force, wherein they are not only agents of the state, but also of the city. This is further driven by the case of Carrington vs the city of St Louis, where the latter was held liable for a dangerous condition created by an officer of the city. Being an agent of the city is further proved by the fact that they are under the control of the commissioners and not the assembly. Furthermore, it is the city of St Louis that pays for the services of the police force.

Given the above facts, the city should also be held liable in this case.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse A
• Subjects

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.