Biscoe v. Arlington County
738 F.2d 1352, 238 U.S. App. D.C. 206 (1984)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A forum state is not constitutionally required by the Full Faith and Credit Clause or principles of comity to apply another state's sovereign immunity laws when doing so would violate the forum state's public policy of deterrence and compensation, particularly for torts committed within the forum state's borders by foreign government employees. Under District of Columbia law, police officers and their employing governmental entities are not immune from suit for negligence arising from ministerial functions, such as the operational conduct of a felony stop and high-speed pursuit.
Facts:
- Late in the morning of September 29, 1979, Lyntellus Brooks and Orlando Durantes robbed the Arlington, Virginia branch of the Washington-Lee Savings & Loan Association.
- Arlington County Police Officer Michael Kyle, responding to an alert, spotted a light green car driven by Brooks, who resembled a suspect from a previous bank robbery, and began to follow him within the speed limit.
- Officer Kyle followed Brooks's car onto the Theodore Roosevelt Bridge and into the District of Columbia, pulling him over on the E Street Ramp.
- Brooks exited his car with his hands up, but Officer Kyle, failing to secure Brooks by not ordering him to turn off the engine, throw keys, shut the door, lie down, handcuff, or frisk him, became preoccupied looking into the back seat for other passengers.
- Brooks, taking advantage of Officer Kyle's preoccupation and his car's running engine, re-entered his vehicle and fled.
- Officer Kyle pursued Brooks at high speeds (70-80 mph in a 25-30 mph zone) through the District of Columbia, despite Arlington County regulations prohibiting high-speed chases in D.C., with Brooks shooting at him.
- Brooks drove through a red light at 20th Street and then struck another vehicle at 19th and E Street, causing his car to careen into Alvin Biscoe, a pedestrian, pinning him against a light pole and severing one of his legs and severely injuring the other, ultimately requiring amputation.
Procedural Posture:
- Alvin Biscoe and Eleanor Biscoe filed a suit for damages against Officer Kyle, Arlington County, and Brooks.
- The case proceeded to an 11-day trial in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
- A jury returned a verdict finding Officer Kyle negligent in his conduct of the felony stop and high-speed pursuit, and Arlington County liable on a theory of respondeat superior and for negligent training and supervision.
- The jury also found Brooks negligent, and all defendants' acts proximately caused the injuries, awarding $4 million to Alvin Biscoe and $1 million to Eleanor Biscoe.
- The award to Eleanor Biscoe was reduced on remittitur to $350,000 by the District Court.
- Defendants Kyle and Arlington County appealed the judgments against them to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the U.S. Constitution or principles of comity require the District of Columbia to apply Virginia's sovereign immunity rules to an Arlington County police officer and the County itself for a tort committed within the District of Columbia, and are the officer's and County's actions in a negligent high-speed pursuit considered discretionary or ministerial for immunity purposes under D.C. law?
Opinions:
Majority - Harry T. Edwards
No, the Full Faith and Credit Clause does not require the District of Columbia to apply Virginia's sovereign immunity, nor do principles of comity, because doing so would violate the District's legitimate public policies. Furthermore, the officer's and County's actions were ministerial, not discretionary, under D.C. law, thereby negating immunity. The court, citing Nevada v. Hall, held that the Full Faith and Credit Clause does not compel a state to apply another state's law in violation of its own legitimate public policy. Virginia law grants counties full immunity from tort suits, whereas D.C. law grants immunity only for 'discretionary' functions. Applying Virginia's immunity would frustrate D.C.'s policies of deterrence and compensation for negligent performance of 'nondiscretionary' acts, especially when the tort occurred within D.C. territory and involved an out-of-state entity acting outside its primary jurisdiction. The D.C. Court of Appeals explicitly declined to recognize other states' sovereign immunity as a matter of comity in Qasim v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, which the court is bound to follow in a diversity action. Applying the District’s governmental interest analysis for choice of law questions, the court found a 'true conflict' of laws. Virginia's interest in county financial integrity and deterring police officers is weakened when the acts occur outside its borders, especially given that its officers are not immune from liability and Virginia itself has partially waived sovereign immunity. In contrast, the District has a strong interest in deterring negligent conduct within its borders, compensating injured parties (including suburban residents working in D.C.), and enforcing its policy against broad sovereign immunity. Regarding official immunity, the court concluded that Officer Kyle’s actions (supervising and instructing officers, conducting a felony stop, and conducting a felony pursuit) were ministerial, not discretionary. These involve 'day-to-day operational matters, not planning and policy.' D.C. law grants immunity only for discretionary functions. The officer was constrained by regulations (including Arlington County's prohibition on high-speed chases in D.C.), further indicating that these were ministerial executions rather than policy decisions. Therefore, both Officer Kyle and Arlington County (under respondeat superior and for negligent training/supervision) were properly found liable. The court also affirmed that the proper standard of care for Officer Kyle was 'due care,' not 'gross negligence,' based on D.C. municipal regulations applicable to drivers of emergency vehicles, and noted that the defendants waived any challenge to this standard by failing to properly object at trial. Furthermore, D.C. law recognizes causes of action for negligent training and supervision of police officers and for a police officer's improper conduct of a felony stop and pursuit, distinguishing this from cases where officers fail to prevent crime.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the limits of sovereign and official immunity when governmental entities and their employees act outside their primary jurisdiction, especially regarding the Full Faith and Credit Clause and comity. It reinforces the principle that forum states can prioritize their public policies over another state's immunity claims for torts occurring within their borders. By classifying police operational actions like felony stops and high-speed pursuits as ministerial, the decision narrows the scope of official immunity for law enforcement, promoting accountability and encouraging adherence to established protocols. This ruling serves as a strong precedent for holding out-of-state government actors liable for negligence within another jurisdiction, particularly in integrated metropolitan areas.
