Lola J. DeWALD

Summary

The court affirmed summary judgment for the officers and the State, but rejected the trial court's conclusion that the officers were protected by common-law qualified immunity when operating their patrol vehicles. It held instead that police pursuit of a fleeing violator is not the proximate cause of injuries to a third party absent extreme or outrageous conduct, and that the record showed no such conduct or causal connection here. The court also rejected the public-duty-only rule because the Governmental Claims Act had abolished sovereign immunity in the relevant area. Chief Justice Thomas, specially concurring, would affirm on qualified-immunity grounds, while Justice Rose, dissenting, would allow a jury to decide whether the officers acted reasonably and in good faith.