Background
While responding to an emergency call in a marked Phoenix police car, Officer Giovani Pavlinch drove through a red light and collided with Juan Aldasoro’s vehicle, which then struck another vehicle. Pavlinch’s emergency lights were activated, but the parties disputed whether his siren was on.
Aldasoro sued Pavlinch and the City of Phoenix for ordinary negligence. The superior court entered summary judgment for the defendants, holding that Pavlinch’s emergency response involved discretionary conduct protected by common-law qualified immunity. It also concluded that Arizona Revised Statutes § 28-624 was a viable affirmative defense.
The Court’s Holding
The Arizona Court of Appeals reversed. It held that police officers have no common-law qualified immunity from ordinary negligence claims. The court rejected prior appellate decisions extending qualified immunity to police conduct characterized as discretionary, concluding that those decisions improperly imported immunity principles from defamation cases into negligence law.
The court also held that § 28-624 does not confer tort immunity on emergency-vehicle drivers. When its conditions are met, the statute permits specified traffic-law departures and prevents those departures from constituting negligence per se, but it does not eliminate the driver’s duty to use reasonable care. Whether Pavlinch’s conduct met that standard must be resolved on remand.
Key Takeaways
- Arizona police officers may be sued for ordinary negligence; discretionary-act immunity does not bar such claims.
- Section 28-624 is a traffic-law privilege, not an immunity statute.
- Emergency-vehicle operators must drive with due regard for others’ safety, evaluated under ordinary reasonable-care principles.
Why It Matters
The decision restores Aldasoro’s negligence claim and expressly rejects broader common-law immunity recognized in prior Arizona appellate decisions. Police agencies and emergency-vehicle operators cannot rely on an officer’s discretionary emergency response alone to defeat ordinary negligence claims.
The ruling also clarifies that lights-and-siren privileges may affect negligence per se, but do not foreclose liability for unreasonable driving under the circumstances.