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.
Insurance Expert May Not Testify to Speculative and Contains Unsupported Conclusions.
Posted on September 18, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at and at https://rumble.com/v7fmifw-expert-may-only-testify-to-what-experience-supports.html
In Michele A. Over, and The Estate Of Paul R. Over v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, and State Farm Fire And Casualty Company, Civil Action No. 23-cv-02243-PAB-STV, United States District Court, D. Colorado (September 14, 2026) Michele and Paul Over sued State Farm Fire and State Farm Auto over hail-damage and stolen-vehicle claims.
The operative dispute concerned State Farm Auto’s motion to exclude or limit opinions from plaintiffs’ insurance-industry expert, Aaron Castillo. Castillo.
Law
The proponent of expert testimony must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that an expert is qualified and that the opinions are helpful, sufficiently grounded, and reliably derived and applied. Experience-based opinions must explain how the...
150 Months in Prison for Tax Fraud
Post 4846
Posted on September 17, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g8rh3JBX and https://lnkd.in/gmkdy-9C, In United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, Nos. 25-10609, 25-10611, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (September 9, 2026) the Eleventh Circuit affirmed all challenged convictions, the 150-month aggregate sentence, and the challenged $4,123,474.55 restitution award.
FACTS
In United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, Nos. 25-10609, 25-10611, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (September 9, 2026) the Eleventh Circuit affirmed all challenged convictions, the 150-month aggregate sentence, and the challenged $4,123,474.55 restitution award.
FACTS
Thomas Addaquay controlled United Consolidated Accounting and Business Services (UC), nominally a check-cashing business.
The government proved a three-stage tax-refund scheme that converted the resulting refund checks into usable funds through ...
Major Fraud Perpetrator Asserts Fifth Amendment Privilege to Avoid Prosecution
Post 5489
Posted on September 14, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Fraudster Refuses to Answer Questions About His Alleged Fraud
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gvicAMDr and at https://lnkd.in/gvicAMDr
In Great American Insurance Co. v. Gemstone Property Management, LLC, et al., No. 23-cv-9100 (LJL), United States District Court, S.D. New York (September 8, 2026) Great American Insurance Company alleged that it was defrauded through a scheme in which Subin Associates, LLP recruited individuals to stage construction-site injuries, arranged unnecessary medical treatment and litigation funding, and pursued fraudulent personal-injury claims.
Luis Manuel Garcia Salcedo, resulted in a $6 million settlement. Non-party Jose Hernandez allegedly worked as an assistant manager at Subin, operated Hernandez Associates, and owned litigation-funding companies that shared office space with Subin and provided services to its clients.
After Great American ...
Payment of Fines & Completion of Probation Reinstates Right to Vote
Post 4576
Posted on November 5, 2026 by Barry Zalma
To Restore Voting Rights The Felon Must Pay Fines of $546.00
In Florida Supreme Court Mediator Ethics Advisory Committee, ETH F-26-377, No. F-26-377 (October 29, 2026) citizen unnamed and to Ron Desantis Governor, Cord Byrd the Secretary of State Florida Division of Elections provided an advisory opinion to a convicted felon about his right to vote:
To: [redacted] We received your request for an advisory opinion. You indicate that you have one or more felony convictions and request whether you are eligible to vote, including whether you have any outstanding legal financial obligations under section 98.0751, Florida Statutes, and, if so, a statement of the amount that must be paid to make you eligible to vote, and an explanation of how the amount was calculated.
The Division hereby responds to your request pursuant to its legal authority under section 106.23(2), Florida Statutes, and Florida ...
Administrative Review Permits the Agency to Apply its Expertise
Post 4574
In Erwin Jordan Castro Valdez v. Warden, Otay Mesa Detention Center, No. 26-cv-06147-BAS-JLB, United States District Court, S.D. California (October 30, 2026) Castro Valdez, a Cuban national paroled into the United States, was arrested on June 23, 2026, for alleged insurance fraud, grand theft, and making a false report to law enforcement. In his first habeas action, the district court ordered a bond hearing within fourteen days to determine whether the changed circumstances justified revoking his parole.
An Immigration Judge subsequently denied bond because of his pending state criminal case. Castro Valdez filed a second petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, challenging that determination and requesting immediate release without first appealing to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA).
LAW
According to the supplied text, § 2241 does not expressly require administrative exhaustion, but courts impose exhaustion as a prudential requirement. ...
Insured’s Ordered to Pay Insurer for Fraud by the Insureds
Post 4573
Posted on November 3, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In The Prudential Insurance Company Of America v. Carol Gardina and George Gardina, No. 6:23-cv-1125-JSS-DCI, United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Orlando Division (October 22, 2026).
THE JURY TRIAL AND VERDICT
Plaintiff sued Defendants for numerous causes of action stemming from its allegations that Defendants fraudulently collected benefits under their long-term care insurance policies. Plaintiff's case proceeded to a nine-day jury trial, after which the jury found Defendants liable for fraudulent misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, and civil conspiracy.
The jury also found Defendant Carol Gardina liable to Plaintiff for $1,930,129 in compensatory damages and Defendant George Gardina liable to Plaintiff for $12,496 in compensatory damages and $20 in punitive damages. Thereafter, the court entered judgment in Plaintiff's favor and awarded Plaintiff $1,930,129 in compensatory damages from...
