On October 28, 2024 the Washington State Court of Appeals, Division I in the matter of Karen Harder et al. v. City of Seattle et al., affirmed Judge Rogers’ summary judgment dismissal for the City of Seattle, represented by Bob Christie and John Barry of Baker Sterchi Cowden & Rice and Tara Gillespie of the City Attorney’s Office. The tragic case involved the death of a man driving a motorcycle when he was struck by a drug intoxicated driver. The Estate and family of Mr. Harder brought the wrongful death action against the driver and the City of Seattle based on a claim that the driver was fleeing from a police officer in “pursuit” at the time of the collision.  Two minutes before the collision a Seattle police officer observed the co-defendant driver parked at a Brown Bear car wash, but not washing his car. The police officer attempted to investigate, but the driver pulled out of the car wash and began to drive away in a reckless manner. The officer tried to conduct a traffic stop by activating his emergency lights, but the driver failed to stop and turned out of sight. The officer de-activated his lights but continued to follow behind the driver at an increasing distance, in case the driver attempted to flee on foot. Instead, the driver continued to accelerate away, making several turns before running a stop sign and hitting the decedent motorcyclist. After the crash, the driver repeatedly told police that he did not see any police officer behind him and was not trying to flee.
 
Plaintiffs filed suit claiming that the City was vicariously liable for the officer’s negligence because the officer had engaged in an “illegal pursuit.” Plaintiff’s theory was that by momentarily activating his lights, the officer caused the driver to flee, making the City responsible for the collision and resulting death.
 
An accident and human-factors reconstruction by the City proved key. That reconstruction showed that the police officer was potentially visible to the driver for 5-6 seconds over the course of several blocks: approximately 4 seconds with his emergency lights active and two split-second moments when the officer and driver were both making turns, while the officer’s lights were off and he was falling further behind. Judge Rogers granted summary judgment on the issue of proximate cause. Plaintiffs appealed. On Monday, October 28, the Court of Appeals in an unpublished decision affirmed, finding that Plaintiffs could not prove cause-in-fact because the record contained nothing refuting the driver’s statement that he never saw the officer. Furthermore, the Estate’s argument that the driver’s reckless driving behavior was caused by fleeing the officer was speculative. Plaintiffs were represented by the Connelly Firm in the trial court and by Talmadge/Fitzpatrick on appeal.