Police Officer Not In the Course of Employment While Driving to Work in Police Vehicle
In this non-workers' compensation case, the Fourth District Court of Appeal in West Palm Beach has held that a police officer on his way to work while driving a police vehicle was not in the course of his employment at the time of his automobile accident. Therefore, the City of Hollywood, the municipality for which he worked, was not liable for the injuries sustained by the pedestrian whom he struck and injured in the accident.
In Garcia v. City of Hollywood, Sergeant Redding was on his way to work at 6:00 a.m. in his police vehicle when he struck and injured Rocio Garcia as she was crossing the road to catch her school bus. The City permitted Redding to take the police vehicle home every evening after his shift and to drive it in to work the next day. Rocio's parents brought suit against the City, claiming that Sergeant Redding negligently operated his vehicle and that he was in the course of his employment at the time of the accident - thereby rendering the City liable for Rocio's injuries under the doctrine of "respondeat superior."
But the Fourth District agreed with the trial court that Sergeant Redding was not in the course of his employment at the time of his accident. The evidence showed that his shift started at 7:00 a.m. and that he was on his way in to work an hour early for personal reasons - studying for his upcoming lieutenant's exam.
The Court also looked to the provisions of s.440.091(1)(b) and concluded that Sergeant Redding was not "discharging [his] primary responsibilty" of enforcing the law at the time of the accident, even though he was "on call" at the time and could have been called to respond immediately to his duties as a law enforcement officer.
Nor was the fact that the City owned the police vehicle enough to establish liability. The Court held that the City was not liable under Florida's "dangerous instrumentality" doctrine - the doctrine which holds that an automobile owner is liable for the negligence of the permissive users of his automobile - because of an earlier decision from the Florida Supreme Court which held that the State of Florida has not waived its "sovereign immunity" from such liability.
NOTE: This was not a workers' compensation case because it did not involve an injury to the employee, Sergeant Redding. The Fourth District did not discuss in its opinion the 2001 amendment to s.440.092(2), Fla. Stat., which provides that an injury to a law enforcement officer "while going to or coming from work in an official law enforcement vehicle shall be presumed to be an injury arising out of and in the course of employment unless the injury occurred during a distinct deviation for a nonessential personal errand."
