What is Gross Negligence?

 Court of Appeals Rules Jury Must Decide Gross Negligence in Police Chase Case: Implications of Higgins v. Mendoza

In a significant legal development, the North Carolina Court of Appeals recently ruled in Higgins v. Mendoza that questions of negligence–particularly whether an officer’s conduct rises to the level of gross negligence–should be left to a jury to decide. This ruling comes in the wake of a tragic incident involving a high-speed pursuit by Trooper Romero, which resulted in the death of Michael Higgins. 

A Tragic Incident

Higgins, an intern with the NC State Highway Patrol, was riding along with Trooper Romero. During the ride along, Trooper Romero decided to engage in a high-speed pursuit of a suspected drunk driver. Despite not observing signs of intoxication, Trooper Romero pursued the driver at speeds exceeding 100 mph–far beyond the posted speed limit and in conditions that should have prompted caution. Romero failed to adjust his speed when approaching a sharp curve on the road. Consequently, he lost control of the car, veered off the road, and crashed into a utility pole and two trees. Higgins tragically lost his life.

What is Gross Negligence: Did Trooper Romero’s Actions Constitute Gross Negligence?

The question arose: did Trooper Romero act with gross negligence in initiating and carrying out this high-speed-chase? Higgins’ family filed a lawsuit against Trooper Romero, asserting that he acted with gross negligence by engaging in an unsafe and reckless pursuit. Trooper Romero’s defense was rooted in governmental immunity, which shields officers from liability for ordinary negligence, but does not protect them from liability if their actions are grossly negligent or involve reckless disregard for others’ safety.

Initially, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Trooper Romero because the court found that the facts did not meet the threshold for gross negligence, ruling that Trooper Romero was protected by immunity.

However, the North Carolina Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s decision, concluding that the case raised significant factual issues about whether Romero’s actions amounted to gross negligence. The court emphasized that gross negligence is inherently a question of fact that should be determined by a jury, not a judge. It found that Romero’s high-speed pursuit–reaching speeds of 113 mph–coupled with his failure to react to a road warning sign and his failure to adjust to changing conditions, demonstrated a reckless disregard for public safety.

What’s Next for this Case?

While the Court of Appeals decision in Higgins v. Mendoza was a victory for the family, it is important to note that the ruling was not unanimous. The case includes a dissenting opinion, meaning that the losing party has an automatic right to appeal to the North Carolina Supreme Court. The Court should follow the bedrock principal of tort law that negligence issues should go to a jury.

What Does Higgins Mean for You?

For victims and families who suffer as a result of police misconduct, the Higgins case highlights the importance of having negligence questions resolved before a jury. The Court of Appeals’ decision in this case represents a key moment in holding law enforcement accountable and ensuring that such cases receive fair consideration in court.

Contact an Experienced Personal Injury Lawyer

If you or a loved one has been involved in a similar incident where police actions caused harm, it is crucial to consult with an experienced attorney who can help ensure that justice is served. Contact the lawyers at Johnson & Groninger PLLC today!