Reference no: EM133503149

CASE:

The facts presented are known to be true by the board. Consider the following scenario:

Officer Smith is on routine patrol during nighttime as a police officer. Smith sees a vehicle drive erratically and decides to stop the vehicle. Upon stopping the vehicle, the driver (hereafter known as Randy) flees on foot from the vehicle. Officer Smith begins to chase Randy on foot and chases him into a residential yard. The yard is in a rural area and has no lighting. Randy continues to flee through the yard and eventually disappears near the rear of the property. Officer Smith then finds that Randy has fallen into a deep stream bed just inside of a wooded area and took about a 10-foot fall while running. As a result, Randy appears to have broken his leg. Randy still attempts to get up and flee. Officer Smith grabs Randy because he is not able to move and takes him to the ground in order to handcuff him. During this time, a neighbor runs up to the area with a shotgun and tells both Officer Smith and Randy to stop what they are doing and put their hands up. Officer Smith tells the neighbor to back up and stay away until Officer Smith is done. The neighbor, not knowing that Officer Smith is a police officer because of the inability to see in the dark and some concealment in the woodline, again tells the men to get their hands up. This time, the neighbor raises the shotgun and fires a warning shot and levels the shotgun in the men's general area. Officer Smith, upon hearing the gunshot and turning to see the shotgun aimed in his general area, draws his firearm and fires a shot at the neighbor, striking the neighbor. The neighbor is severely injured as a result. Randy is taken into custody.

After the incident, Randy files a lawsuit against the residence owner, Officer Smith, and the police department for unintentional and intentional torts against him. Randy alleges that the stream bed should have been fenced or marked, which would have stopped Randy from being injured. Additionally, Randy alleges that Officer Smith caused the injury because Officer Smith initiated a foot chase with Randy and that Randy would not have been injured if the officer had not chased him. Randy alleges that the police department should also be liable because Officer Smith represents the agency and should have been supervised to the extent that would have prevented the injury to Randy.

Additionally, the neighbor files a lawsuit against Officer Smith and the agency. As a result of the shooting, the neighbor can no longer walk. The neighbor alleges that Officer Smith should not have shot the neighbor because the neighbor did not intend or plan to shoot Officer Smith and was simply trying to protect his neighbor's land.

Use the case study below to help me with the following questions?

1. Did unintentional or intentional tort occur?

2. Did any of those action rise to the level of a tort claim?

3. Is the Officer Smith liable to the owner/resident?

4. What are possible defenses Officer Smith and the Owner/resident might use to avoid liability?

5. What rational do both parties have in the incident?

6. What is the potential liability for the law enforcement agency?

7. What defenses could be use by the law enforcement agency?

8. What are the impacts these actions and torts claims could have on the professional realm and agency?