No. The officer is not at fault. The court explained that a police officer's job is to be 'reasonable,' not perfect. Officer Robson acted reasonably by telling Mr. Misuraca to leave the wire alone and then turning his attention to the more immediate emergency—the people in the crashed car. Mr. Misuraca made his own choice to disobey the officer's warning and mess with the wire again. Because the officer was doing his job in a sensible way, he can't be blamed for the tragic outcome that resulted from Mr. Misuraca's own actions.

No, Officer Robson acted reasonably based on the facts. When I arrived, I told the people not to touch the downed wire, and they listened at first. I made sure the wire wasn't an immediate danger, then went to check on the crash victims, which was the right thing to do. I couldn't have predicted that the person would later ignore my warning and pull on the wire, causing it to hit a power line. I did my job properly by securing the scene and trying to prevent harm as much as the situation allowed. The city isn't responsible because the law protects officers when they make judgment calls while doing their duties, as long as they act reasonably like I did here.

No. A police officer's duty at an accident scene is to choose a course of action that is reasonable under the circumstances, and this duty does not require the officer to choose the 'best' or 'better' method of approach. The court first clarified that the 'public duty doctrine' is not the law of Louisiana, and that discretionary immunity under La. R.S. 9:2798.1 did not apply because the officer's actions were not based on social, economic, or political policy. Instead, the court applied a traditional duty-risk analysis. The court found that Officer Robson's duty was to act reasonably to investigate the accident and ensure motorists were not subjected to unreasonable risks. He fulfilled this duty by prioritizing the accident victims, instructing Misuraca to stop handling the wire, and briefly checking the wire for immediate danger. Misuraca's subsequent and disobedient act of yanking the wire, while the officer was reasonably discharging his primary duties, was the cause of his own death. Therefore, Officer Robson did not breach his duty of care.

No, Officer Robson did not breach his duty to act reasonably under the circumstances, because the uncontested facts show that upon arriving at the accident scene, I instructed the civilians to stop handling the downed guy-wire, which they initially complied with. I verified the wire was not an immediate danger, then turned my attention to interviewing the accident victims, which was a reasonable prioritization. The civilian's subsequent decision to disregard my earlier instruction and yank on the wire, causing it to contact a power line, was not a foreseeable event that I could have reasonably prevented in the course of investigating the accident. Applying the duty-risk analysis, my conduct was not a cause-in-fact of the resulting harm, as I took reasonable steps to secure the scene and prevent injury to motorists and bystanders under the circumstances. The City of Kenner is not liable because La. R.S. 9:2798.1 provides discretionary function immunity where, as here, the officer's actions were reasonably related to the legitimate governmental objective of investigating the accident and protecting public safety.

Misuraca v. City of Kenner

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot