I didn’t make myself clear. I’m only talking about immunity from civil lawsuits. I think that police departments can implement guidelines for high-speed chases, and if the officer fails to follow them, he can be disciplined or have his employment terminated.

What I’m against is a third party suing the police for an accident started by a criminal defendant.

It seems to me these are not mutually exclusive (what, after all, is an illegal search, but a failure to “listen to the boss” and get a proper warrant?). Additionally, it seems clear from the background that the officer opted for deadly force, when he had received authorization for a lesser level of force. Again, since we are not (yet) talking about whether Harris should recover damages, but only about whether he should get his day in court, it seems far from clear to me that his case should be dismissed out of hand.

That doesn’t sound like two losing possibilities for those attornies. That sounds like two winning opportunities. Even if they lose the case and get nothing, the have the recognition / notoriety that comes with having a case heard at the SCOTUS. Do you think that has no value? You can bet your bottom dollar (pun intended) that it does, even if they lose. And if they win, now they are a firm that has WON a case at SCOTUS. That doesn’t even take into account the possibility that they win at SCOTUS and then also win at the liability lawsuit, which likely reaps bug bucks. Sorry, I disagree 100% with the “underpaid” view.

In any case, the point wasn’t whether this particular trial lawyer, who was faced with an appeal all the way to the Supreme Court, would receive a windfall, but whether trial lawyers in general, faced with such cases, would.

A windfall for anyone is unlikely given the very high levels of comparative negligence. It’s not like defense counsel will roll over and play dead during trial. In the face of this, plaintiff’s counsel absorbs the risk of tens of thousands of dollars in disbursements that will never be returned with a defense verdict. The risk of such representation is spectacularly high.

I would go even further and make the criminal liable for collateral damage as well, with possible liability for the police if some fairly high standard can be met that showed that the police caused some damage purposefully (basically, a standard designed to prevent abuse such as an officer using th chase an as excuse to run down someon they don’t like or something).

Basically, we want high speed chases to be as rare as possible. The best way to do this is to make sure that they NEVER EVER EVER pay off for the guy trying to outrun the police.

In any case, the point wasn’t whether this particular trial lawyer, who was faced with an appeal all the way to the Supreme Court, would receive a windfall, but whether trial lawyers in general, faced with such cases, would.

I saw the video in the Supreme Court Case. The bump did not cause the accident, the high speed did. Any minor distraction could be disasterous.

Police running wild make good B movies, but most Police departments have disciplinary procedures to enforce discipline. I doubt if law suits have any positive effect.

This is a cheap shot. It is easy for us to sit in the comfort of a cozy ofice or home and secomnd, third or even fouth guess some cop on the streets. When we come to a different conclusion or course of action than we come to, that must mean they are not bright.

While there are cops that may make questionable decisions or that may not have the IQ of a genius, they also don’t have the benefit of time when making decisions, or the benefit of the ability to appeal something that goes against them.

Every day in this country, some court somewhere reverses a decision of another lower court. Was the lower court comprised of “less than brillant people?” Are the lawyers that are said to provide ineffecive counsel less than brillant for their performance as well?

Saying that many cops are less than brillant is a cheap shot.