CA Appeals Court Says Paralyzed Girl's Lawsuit Against CHP Can Proceed
Recent CA case reminds us that emergency responders are not immune from civil claims and must proceed with care when responding in emergency situations.

April 24, 2010 /24-7PressRelease/ -- CA Appeals Court Says Paralyzed Girl's Lawsuit Against CHP Can Proceed

On February 24, 2010, the Court of Appeal for the Fifth District of California reinstated Katrina Martinez's lawsuit against the California Highway Patrol (CHP). CHP Officer DeLeon extracted Martinez, a 20-month-old, from a car involved in an accident. Martinez claimed that the way DeLeon extracted her and held her either caused or exacerbated her injuries. The court determined that a judge or juror could reasonably conclude that DeLeon was grossly negligent in his actions and the case should go to trial.

The Facts

On April 7, 2006, Thomas Holt, in a stolen vehicle, struck a car driven by Martinez's aunt, Lisa Rosas. Holt then fled on foot. The pursuing officer attempted to follow Holt but also struck Rosas' vehicle. According to a Bakersfield.com article by Jason Kotowski, Rosas died in the crash and Martinez was paralyzed.

DeLeon removed Martinez from the vehicle and carried her to the ambulance. Martinez brought a lawsuit against the CHP, claiming DeLeon improperly and unsafely extracted her from the vehicle and in an unsafe, reckless and grossly negligent manner held her with one hand while using the other hand to operate his cellular phone.

The Arguments

The CHP moved for summary judgment on the ground that it did not breach any duty of care owed toward Martinez. CHP Officer Vincent explained that Martinez was hanging by her neck from the shoulder belt of the car, and that she looked cyanotic, was unresponsive, her limbs were twitching and she was bringing up blood from her mouth. It therefore appeared necessary to extract Martinez from the car quickly. Vincent believed DeLeon removed Martinez from the car as gently as possible under the circumstances and tried to support her head and neck during removal.

After removal, Vincent continued, DeLeon needed to hold Martinez because the ambulance did not have the right size equipment to fit her. When directed to carry Martinez to the ambulance, he did. The entire time he held her, Vincent said he did not see DeLeon carry a cellular phone but only the folding knife he had used to extract Martinez from the car.

In opposition, Martinez argued there was a jury question whether DeLeon's decision to extract Martinez before the paramedics arrived was negligent, whether he negligently extracted her and whether he held her in an unsafe, reckless and grossly negligent manner.

Gary Ludwig, the deputy fire chief of Memphis, Tennessee, fire department, who had trained Emergency Medical Responders, stated that the photographs of DeLeon holding Martinez showed that he negligently failed to place her on a flat surface to immobilize and stabilize her neck and that he negligently walked around and carried her without adequately supporting her neck and spine. He explained that the applicable standard of care required Martinez to be placed on a nearly flat and safe surface to avoid the danger of exacerbating or further traumatizing a spinal injury.

Ludwig also claimed DeLeon ought not to have extracted Martinez in the first place. Instead, the reasonable solution was to pull the shoulder belt out and hold it, or cut it, to relieve pressure, but not to move or extract Martinez.

Martinez also offered the testimony of paramedics Jeff Farris and Felipe Hernandez, who stated Martinez' head and spine were not supported while DeLeon was holding her.

The Courts

California Health and Safety Code Section 1799.106 states in relevant part, that a "police officer ... who renders emergency medical services at the scene of an emergency shall only be liable in civil damages for acts or omissions performed in a grossly negligent manner."

Ordinary negligence, an unintentional tort, consists of the failure to exercise the degree of care in a given situation that a reasonable person under similar circumstances would employ to protect others from harm. Gross negligence, on the other hand, has been defined as either a want of even scant care or an extreme departure from the ordinary standard of conduct.

The trial court ruled in favor of the CHP, finding that it could not be shown that DeLeon was grossly negligent. The court of appeals reversed, saying that even if the CHP had demonstrated that DeLeon had good reason to extract Martinez from the vehicle, it did not show that DeLeon in any way attempted to stabilize her neck and spine.

Emergency responders are not immune from civil claims. While the gross negligence standard applies to their actions, they must nevertheless proceed with care when responding in emergency situations.

What Happens Next

Martinez has not won her lawsuit but only the ability to proceed to trial. At trial, Martinez will have to demonstrate that DeLeon was grossly negligent, and if she can, prove damages, which may include:
- General damages: Money recovered for physical and emotional pain and suffering
- Special damages: Compensation for medical bills, loss of earnings (past, present and future), nursing care, prescription costs and other specific costs
- Punitive damages: Additional damages are sometimes awarded to punish a party for egregious conduct, although the award must be reasonable and necessary

An accident can be physically and emotionally debilitating. An attorney can provide counsel and assist you with any claims for damages to help offset medical costs, loss of earnings and pain and suffering.

Press Release Contact Information:

Findlaw PR