CLEVELAND STATE UNIVERSITY Monte Ahuja College of Business Administration Accounting Department Fall 2016 Course Title: Business Law and Ethics Course Section: BLW 411, Section 50 ASSIGNMENT #3 Five Cleveland City police officers were summoned to break up a disturbance at a local party of teenagers. At the party, Rick, who had consumed eight cups of beer and three cups of alcoholic punch, became rowdy and had to be detained by the officers. The police officers released Rick after receiving the assurances of his brother Ed that he would drive Rick home. After leaving the party, Ed allowed Rick to take the wheel. Instead of going home, Rick drove to the site of another party where he lost control of the car and ran down six people. The police officers were sued for negligence in releasing of Rick. What decision should the court reach in this matter and why? (Analysis should include (i) a brief factual background of the matter; (ii) the issue(s) to be decided in the matter; (iii) the decision ultimately reached in the matter; and (iv) the rationale for the decision). Mitchell Falatach 2457201 BLW 411 Sec 50 Assignment #3 Facts of the Case: Five Cleveland City Police officers were sent to a house to break up a party of teenagers. At the house they found Rick intoxicated with consumption of eleven alcoholic drinks. The officers released Rick in notion that Rick would be drove home by his brother. After Ricks release, he drove a car and ran down six people. The police officers were sued for negligence in releasing of Rick. Issues: 1) Did the Cleveland City Police officers commit a negligent tort when they released the brothers. 2) Did the Cleveland City Police officers violate Ohio Revised Coad Annotated 737.11 General duties of police and fire departments when they released Rick? 3) Did the Cleveland City Police officers violate Ohio Revised Coad Annotated 2921.44 Dereliction of duty when they released Rick? Decision: 1) 1) The Cleveland City Police officers violated Ohio Revised Coad Annotated 737.11 General duties of police and fire departments when they released Rick. 2) The Cleveland City Police officers violated Ohio Revised Coad Annotated 2921.44 Dereliction of duty when they released Rick. Rationale: Elements of Negligence: In Hubbell v. Ross (1999),^1 to have negligence there needs to be, \"(1) the existence of a duty; (2) breach of that duty by the defendant; (3) proximate cause between the breach and some damage to the plaintiff; and (4) damage to the plaintiff.\" Duty: As stated in Hubbell v. Ross (1999),^1 to have negligence there needs to be \"the existence of a duty.\" A duty arises when there is a relationship between the defendant and the plaintiff. In the facts of the case the Police officers have the duty to protect civilians against violators of the law. Cause in Fact: In VAHILA v. HALL(1995)^2, it is noted for analysis of proximate cause must begin with consideration that the actions of the \"defendant was a cause in fact of damages to the plaintiff\". In the facts of the case, 6 pedestrians were injured because of Rick driving giving a cause in fact. Proximate Cause: Proximate cause is when a defendant has foreseen that their actions would cause the plaintiff's injuries. In THE CITY OF PIQUA v. MORRIS ET AL(1918)^3 proximate cause is defined as \"a natural and continued sequence contributes to produce the result, without which it would not have happened\". In the facts of the case if the officers never let the drunk driver Rick go he would have never ran down the 6 pedestrians. The brother of Rick told the officers that he would take Rick home. If the brother would have drove the two then the 6 pedestrians may have not been run down. Damages: As stated in Hubbell v. Ross (1999),^1 to have negligence there needs to be damage to plaintiff. If the plaintiffs are the people ran over by Rick, there were damages to them with injury. Duty of Police: In Ohio Revised Coad Annotated 737.11^4, it states, \"The police force of a municipal corporation shall preserve the peace, protect persons and property, and obey and enforce all ordinances of the legislative authority of the municipal corporation, all criminal laws of the state and the United States...\" In this statement it points out that a police officer should protect persons and enforce all ordinances of legislative authority. The Ohio Revised Coad also spells out the Dereliction of Duty. In Ohio Revised Coad Annotated 2921.44 (A)(2)^5 it notes that no law enforcement officer shall negligently \"Fail to prevent or halt the commission of an offense or to apprehend an offender, when it is in the law enforcement officer's power to do so alone or with available assistance.\" In the facts of the case, the officers did not protect the citizens that were hit by the driver and they did not enforce the ordinances of the legislative authority letting under age alcohol consumers go without proper repercussions designated by the state. It was in the officers power to apprehend the offender and they failed to do their duty. 1) Nicholas A. Hubbell et al. v. Chris Ross et al., COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, FRANKLIN COUNTY,1999 Ohio App. 2) TERRY VAHILA v. CHARLES D. HALL, III, COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, STARK COUNTY, 1995 Ohio App. 3) THE CITY OF PIQUA v. MORRIS ET AL., Supreme Court of Ohio, 98 Ohio St. 42; 120 N.E. 300; 1918 Ohio 4) ORC Ann 737.11 http://statelaws.findlaw.com/ohio-law/ohio-negligence-laws.html http://injury.findlaw.com/accident-injury-law/elements-of-a-negligence-case.html http://www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/lnacademic/ gross deficiencies and deliberate indifference regarding policy of admitting to jail and handling unconscious persons suspected of intoxication); Languirand v. Hayden, 717 F.2d 220, 227 (5th Cir. 1983) (gross negligence regarding widespread misbehavior of police force or pattern of incidents