Plaintiffs Omer Jackson and Sharonda Jackson sued defendants County of Hudson, Hudson County Sheriff’s Office, and Officer Renato Maure-Cascaret for injuries suffered by Omer when his car was hit by a car that was being pursued in a high speed chase by Officer Maure-Cascaret. The defendants successfully filed for a motion for summary judgment, obtaining a dismissal of the lawsuit. The issue in Jackson v. County of Hudson, 2024 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 561 (App. Div. Apr. 4, 2024) was whether the officer committed willful misconduct in his police pursuit or whether he was immune from liability under the Tort Claims Act.
The incident occurred at about 5:00 a.m. when Officer Maure-Cascaret of the Hudson County Sheriff’s Department was conducting radar enforcement in Jersey City. He observed a vehicle driven by defendant Oriental Hamlet pass through three consecutive red lights and his radar captured his speed at traveling between 68 and 70 miles per hour on a road with a posted speed limit of 25 miles per hour. The officer began following Hamlet and attempted to “close the gap” without turning on his patrol car’s lights or sirens. He radioed the on-duty communications officers to inform them that he was following a vehicle traveling at a high speed. The Hamlet vehicle ultimately slowed down and the officer was able to initiate a traffic stop. After both vehicles were stopped for several seconds, the officer called in Hamlet’s license plate but then Hamlet suddenly sped away.
Officer Maure-Cascaret again contacted the on-duty communications officers to report that the vehicle had sped away and he was going to pursue it. Hamlet then sped through a red light and collided with Omer’s vehicle which had the green light.
This entire incident from the time the officer initially observed Hamlet speeding to the attempt to pull him over, to the accident terminating the pursuit, lasted only about 50 seconds. The time period after the initial stop was about 30 seconds and lasted approximately 9 or 10 blocks. The officer was about one block behind Hamlet when the collision occurred.
The trial court found that the Tort Claims Act provision, N.J.S.A. 59:5-2(b)(2), conferred immunity on the police officer for injuries resulting from a pursuit. Under this statutory provision, “neither a public entity nor a public employee is liable for any injury caused by an escaping person or escaped person.” And, further, under N.J.S.A. 59:5-2(c), neither the public employee, nor the public entity is liable for “any injury resulting from or caused by a law enforcement officer’s pursuit of a person.”
Plaintiff contended, however, that there was an issue whether the officer’s decision to initiate the pursuit and his subsequent failure to terminate the pursuit violated the Attorney General’s Vehicular Pursuit Policy and, therefore, constituted willful misconduct (which would void out these immunities).
In the prior New Jersey Supreme Court Case of Fielder v. Stonack, the Court defined willful misconduct in the context of police pursuits. There are two elements which must be satisfied: “(1) disobeying either a specific lawful command of a superior or a specific lawful standing order and (2) knowing of the command or standing order, knowing that it is being violated and, intending to violate it.”
The Appellate Division agreed with the trial court decision herein that “there were no credible facts in the record to establish Officer Maure-Cascaret engaged in willful misconduct during his pursuit of Hamlet.” Under the Attorney General Guidelines, a police officer may only pursue a suspect if they have committed a first-or second-degree offense or if the officer reasonably believes the suspect poses an immediate threat to either the public or the officer.
In his deposition, the officer had explained that his decision to pursue Hamlet was based, in part, on Hamlet pulling away from the initiated traffic stop. This was a second degree offense of eluding, warranting police pursuit based upon the Attorney General Guidelines. In conjunction with the characterizations of Hamlet’s action as a second degree offense, the officer’s decision was authorized and, therefore, his actions did not constitute willful misconduct.
Further, the Appellate Division noted that this pursuit was of such a short duration that the accident occurred before the officer could even have a reasonable chance to terminate the pursuit. As for the use of excessive speed, it is judged upon whether it is reasonable for the officer to move at excessive speed. The trial judge had concluded that finding the officer acted improperly pursuing Hamlet at the speeds he traveled would be “an unfair and illogical reading of the guidelines.”
To deny the defendants’ summary judgment motion “would have required a factual dispute over whether Officer Maure-Cascaret demonstrated willful misconduct in both his decision to pursue Hamlet and his failure to terminate the pursuit prior to the collision.”
The Appellate Division found that the undisputed facts showed that the pursuit occurred on a virtually empty street before 5:00 a.m., it lasted 30 seconds, for only 9 blocks, with no order from a commanding officer to terminate the pursuit, and there was no expert report opining that the officer’s speed was unreasonable. Hence, based upon these factual circumstances, there were no facts that could demonstrate willful misconduct and, therefore, no genuine dispute as to any material fact existed. Thus, the Appellate Division affirmed the trial court decision, dismissing the lawsuit.
