Edgerton v. Clinton

Summary

The dissent would affirm the trial court's judgment, concluding that a reasonable 911 dispatcher should have recognized that allowing a hit-and-run victim to pursue the fleeing vehicle created an imminent risk of harm to identifiable persons. It also disagrees with the majority's sequencing of negligence and governmental immunity, viewing immunity as an affirmative defense applied after negligence is established. The dissent maintains that the jury's findings and expert testimony supported application of the identifiable-person-imminent-harm exception. Justice Eveleigh, dissenting, would have affirmed rather than upheld municipal immunity.