Officer Making U-Turn Chasing Criminal May be Immune if Not Done in Reckless Disregard for Safety of Others
Fact Finder Must Establish Basis for Immunity
Post 5236
See the video at https://rumble.com/v72gq5o-governmental-immunity-is-not-absolute.html and at https://youtu.be/CHlEX2ZCc4s and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5200 posts.
In Robert Young v. Officer John Doe et al. No. 2025 CA 0527 (La. App. 1st Cir. November 22, 2025) Robert Young sued Sid J. Gautreaux, III, in his official capacity as Sheriff of East Baton Rouge Parish (the “Sheriff”), and multiple insurance companies. The Sheriff’s Office and an unnamed deputy were not part of the summary-judgment ruling on appeal.
Procedural Posture
The trial court granted Sheriff’s motion for summary judgment, dismissed all claims against the Sheriff with prejudice, holding that La. R.S. 32:24 immunity applied and that Deputy Miller’s conduct did not rise to reckless disregard/gross negligence.
Key Facts
On July 19, 2019, Highway 19 Deputy Kevin Miller (EBR Sheriff’s Office) was responding to assist in a foot pursuit of fleeing suspects; his emergency lights were activated; sirens had been on earlier but were off at the moment of the collision. The Deputy said he was traveling northbound and began a U-turn after the suspect ran past him. Young says the deputy was parked/stationary on the northbound shoulder, then abruptly pulled out and executed a U-turn directly in front of him without warning.
Young was traveling northbound in the inside (left) northbound lane at normal or reduced speed. Deputy Miller initiated a U-turn into the southbound lanes to pursue/block the suspect; the front of Young’s vehicle struck the passenger side of the deputy’s Tahoe. Young suffered shoulder/neck injuries requiring surgery.
Controlling Statute: La. R.S. 32:24 (Emergency Vehicle Privileges)
Subsections A–C grant privileges to emergency vehicles responding to calls or in pursuit provided audible/visual signals are used sufficient to warn motorists.
These privileges do not relieve the driver of the duty of due regard for the safety of others and do not protect the driver from the consequences of reckless disregard for the safety of others. Emergency-vehicle drivers are liable only for reckless disregard (defined by Louisiana courts as gross negligence), not ordinary negligence.
Legal Standards Applied by the Court of Appeals
Statutory immunity under La. R.S. 32:24 is an affirmative defense. The governmental defendant bears the initial burden. Immunity statutes are strictly construed against the party claiming immunity.
On summary judgment, all factual inferences and doubts are resolved against the mover and in favor of trial on the merits. Summary judgment is rarely appropriate when reasonableness, state of mind, or degree of care (ordinary vs. gross negligence/reckless disregard) are at issue, because those determinations usually require weighing evidence and credibility assessments.
Genuine Issues of Material Fact Identified by the Appellate Court
The appellate court found multiple disputed material facts that precluded summary judgment:
1. Whether Deputy Miller was moving northbound (straddling lanes) or parked/stationary on the shoulder immediately before initiating the U-turn.
2. Whether adequate visual or audible signals were used immediately before/during the U-turn maneuver sufficient to warn northbound traffic.
3. Conflicting descriptions of the overall scene (location of suspects, other officers, traffic, etc.).
Because the disputes went to the heart of whether the statutory privileges were properly invoked, and whether the deputy’s conduct rose to reckless disregard/gross negligence, the court held that the Sheriff failed to carry his burden.
CONCLUSION
The appellate court reversed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment. The resolution was based upon Louisiana’s emergency-vehicle immunity under La. R.S. 32:24 is not absolute.
When material facts are disputed about the driver’s position, the adequacy of warnings, and the overall circumstances of an abrupt maneuver (here, a U-turn across traffic), summary judgment on the reckless-disregard/gross-negligence exception is improper. The case must go to a fact-finder (jury or judge) to determine whether the deputy’s actions amounted to reckless disregard for the safety of others.
ZALMA OPINION
The insurance issues will be determined by the findings of the trial court whether the deputy’s actions were reckless disregard for the safety of others. If so, he and the Sheriff’s office will be found liable and if not, they can be found immune and the insurers may not be required to indemnify the defendants.
(c) 2025 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.
Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.
Subscribe to my substack at https://barryzalma.substack.com/subscribe
Go to X @bzalma; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/account/content?type=all; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg; Go to the InsuranceClaims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk.
Policy Limits Demand Accepted Settles Claim
Post 5434
Posted on August 26, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-ZtsSgK and at https://lnkd.in/ghMBdYWR
A Contingent Offer Accepted Ends the Dispute
In Farmers Insurance Exchange, a California Reciprocal Insurance Exchange, The Superior Court For The County Of San Bernardino, Kathleen Ann Wood, E087128, California Court of Appeals, (July 9, 2026) Farmers Insurance Exchange insured Doyle Archer under an automobile policy with bodily injury limits of $15,000 per person and $30,000 per accident.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Archer rear-ended Kathleen Ann Wood at a red light, causing Wood to assert a bodily injury claim against him. Wood’s counsel sent Farmers a pre-litigation settlement demand offering to resolve Wood’s claim for the available policy limits, stating that if the $100,000 demand exceeded the policy, the offer was for the policy limits.
Farmers timely responded in writing, agreed to pay Wood the $15,000 per-person policy limit, and provided the requested ...
Policy Limits Demand Accepted Settles Claim
Post 5434
Posted on August 26, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-ZtsSgK and at https://lnkd.in/ghMBdYWR
A Contingent Offer Accepted Ends the Dispute
In Farmers Insurance Exchange, a California Reciprocal Insurance Exchange, The Superior Court For The County Of San Bernardino, Kathleen Ann Wood, E087128, California Court of Appeals, (July 9, 2026) Farmers Insurance Exchange insured Doyle Archer under an automobile policy with bodily injury limits of $15,000 per person and $30,000 per accident.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Archer rear-ended Kathleen Ann Wood at a red light, causing Wood to assert a bodily injury claim against him. Wood’s counsel sent Farmers a pre-litigation settlement demand offering to resolve Wood’s claim for the available policy limits, stating that if the $100,000 demand exceeded the policy, the offer was for the policy limits.
Farmers timely responded in writing, agreed to pay Wood the $15,000 per-person policy limit, and provided the requested ...
The Largest Residential Burglary of All Time
Post 5407
Fraud & the Fear of Bad Faith Suits
Posted on July 22, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gWQQEySW and at https://lnkd.in/gyhdK6wv
This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud explaining why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is one of a collection designed to help to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the Perpetrators than any Other Crime.
This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud explaining why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is one of a collection designed to help to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the Perpetrators than any Other Crime.
After ...
Qui Tam Relators are not officers of the United States
Posted on September 4, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Attempt to use Constitution to Stop a Qui Tam False Claims Act Case
Post 5486
FCA’s Qui Tam Provisions do not Violate the Appointments Clause.
In United States Of America, Clarissa Zafirov, ex rel; Dr. v. Florida Medical Associates, LLC, d.b.a. Vipcare, Physician Partners, LLC, Anion Technologies, LLC, Freedom Health, Inc., Optimum Healthcare, Inc., Physician Partners Specialty Services, LLC, et al., No. 24-13581, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (September 1, 2026).
The False Claims Act (“FCA”) allows the Attorney General to bring civil suits against perpetrators of fraud against the government. This case involves another portion of the FCA-the qui tam provisions-which allow people, called relators, who have knowledge about fraud against the government to pursue a case against the perpetrator of the fraud.
Dr. Clarissa Zafirov filed a qui tam action under the False Claims Act on behalf of...
Posted on September 3, 2026 by Barry Zalma
You Only Get One Chance to Sue
Post 5484
In David Cromp v. Johnny Harkrider, Monique Harkrider, and their Marital Community, dba Able Plumbing Plus, No. 61678-5-II, Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 2 (August 25, 2026) David Cromp hired Able Plumbing Plus in 2018 to install plumbing, including two toilets, at his residence. In 2019, both toilets allegedly leaked, causing damage. Insurance claims were submitted through Able’s contractor policy, but the insurer eventually denied the claims.
Cromp sued Able in 2022 for breach of contract based on the allegedly defective toilet installation. During that case, Cromp attempted to add claims related to Able’s conduct during the insurance claim process, including fraud, bad faith, tortious conduct, and bond-related claims, but the superior court denied leave to amend. The 2022 breach-of-contract claim was later dismissed with prejudice on summary judgment as time-barred.
On the same day the 2022 case was dismissed, Cromp filed a ...
Habeas Corpus Petition Granted
Post 5483
Posted on September 2, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Over Staying Visa & Charge of Insurance Fraud Still Entitled to Habeas Relief and a Bond Hearing
In Hernan Guillermo Palomino-Crespo v. Warden, Glades County Detention Center et al., No. 2:26-cv-02322-SPC-NPM, United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Fort Myers Division (August 26, 2026) Hernan Guillermo Palomino-Crespo’s Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, the government’s response and Palomino-Crespo’s reply.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Palomino-Crespo is a native and citizen of Colombia who lawfully entered the United States on a B-2 non-immigrant visa on February 24, 2017. He resides in Miami, Florida with his wife and two minor children, owns and operates a residential restoration and remodeling business, and files U.S. tax returns.
On June 4, 2026, the State of Florida charged Palomino-Crespo with insurance fraud.
Palomino-Crespo claimeds he did not meet the requirements for mandatory detention under § ...
