County could be liable for wrongful death after misclassified 911 call

March 27, 2014

County could be liable for wrongful death after misclassified 911 call

Article provided by Schauermann, Thayer, Jacobs & Staples
Visit us at http://www.stjps.com

When a person in danger calls 911, they expect that they will receive help quickly. But what if the way a call is handled results in the wrongful death of a victim? Could the county or city involved be held liable for the death?

The Washington Supreme Court case of Munich v. Skagit Emergency Communication Center discussed this type of situation.

A neighbor with a rifle

The victim and a neighbor had been in a property dispute when the neighbor fired a rifle at him and missed. The victim called 911 and informed the operator about what had happened and that he was hiding in his garage. The operator assured the victim that help was on the way, and asked the victim if he would wait there for contact. The victim said yes.

The operator logged the call as a weapons offense, instead as an emergency call. Because of this, the deputy sent to the scene did not activate his lights and traveled just above the speed limit.

A few minutes later, the neighbor found the victim and a chase on the highway ensued, with the neighbor in a car and the victim on foot. The victim was fatally shot on the highway, two minutes before the deputy arrived.

The victim's estate sued the county and other entities for the wrongful death, alleging negligencein the way the county had responded to the incident. The county moved for summary judgment, attempting to end the case early, arguing that the county had provided no inaccurate or false information when the operator stated that help was on the way. The trial court denied this motion, and the county appealed.

Were the assurances false?

On appeal, the county argued that the victim's estate had to prove that the express assurances given by the 911 operator were false. However, the Washington Supreme Court explained that there was a clear difference between assurances involving "information" and assurances promising "action."

The victim relied not only on the information contained in the assurance by the 911 operator, but also on the fulfillment of that action. Truth or falsity of the information was not determinative because the county could still have been negligent in following through on the assurance.

Therefore, the assurance that officers were "on their way" was enough to meet one of the key requirements of the victim's case. The lower court's decision was affirmed, and the victim's estate would be able to continue with their lawsuit.

A skillful advocate for your family

If you have lost a family member due to the another's negligence, whether it was a governmental entity, a business, or another person, you should speak immediately with an experienced personal injury attorney. Seek an attorney who will be a skillful advocate on your behalf and work with you to bring your rightful claim against the responsible parties.