Police Officer Going The Wrong Way On A One Way Involved In A Crash

In March 2003, a St. Louis police car, driven by a police officer the wrong way on a one-way street in the city of St. Louis, collided with a car driven by Kimberly Hodges' mother, who sustained multiple injuries. The mother sued the city of St. Louis, the police officer, the city's board of police commissioners and individual board members. The city moved to dismiss several times, each time alleging the sovereign immunity provisions of section 537.600, RSMo, protected it from liability. The court overruled the motions, and the city ultimately moved for summary judgment, again raising sovereign immunity as a defense. While the motion was pending, the mother died, and the court substituted Hodges to step in her mother's place as the plaintiff and to add a wrongful death action against the defendants. The jury found for Hodges and awarded her $1.2 million in damages. The trial court entered judgment against the city but reduced the amount of damages to $335,119 to reflect the limit of liability available under the sovereign immunity cap of section 537.610, RSMo. Pursuant to section 537.095, RSMo, the court also entered a partial judgment against the officer, the board and individual board members. The city and Hodges both appeal.

The city argues Hodges did not present enough evidence that the police officer involved in the accident was an agent of the city. It contends that the officer was an employee of the board and, therefore, that the board, not the city, is liable for the officer's actions. The city argues the state's sovereign immunity law, sections 537.600 to 537.620, RSMo, provides immunity for the city for lawsuits except for injuries resulting from "the negligent acts or omissions by public employees arising out of the operation of motor vehicles … within the course of their employment." The city contends that, because the officer is not an employee of the city, the operation of the police car was not within the course of city employment. It asserts, therefore, that it cannot be held liable and that the court should have sustained its motion for direct verdict or for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.

In response to Hodges' cross-appeal, the city argues the issues of the constitutional validity of the statutory cap and limitation of recovery in the sovereign immunity statutes were not preserved for appellate review. The city asserts that even if the constitutional issues were preserved for review, Hodges is entitled only to the reduced amount based on the statutory cap. It argues the cap does not violate equal protection because the cap does not infringe on a fundamental right of Hodges, there is no authority for any level of scrutiny other than the "rational relationship" test, and there is a rational relationship between the cap and the city’s interest. Read more at courts.mo.gov