Santangelo v. State, 71 N.Y.2d 393 (1988)

Police officers generally cannot recover damages from the State for injuries sustained while apprehending an escaped mental patient, based on public policy considerations similar to the “firefighter’s rule.”

Summary

Two police officers, Santangelo and Kirschenheiter, were injured while apprehending Brian Bordes, an escaped mental patient. They sued the State, alleging negligence in allowing Bordes to escape and violating regulations regarding notification of his escape and dangerousness. The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower courts’ denial of recovery, holding that public policy precludes recovery for injuries sustained by police officers in the line of duty when confronting situations they are specifically trained and compensated to handle. This decision extends the rationale of the “firefighter’s rule” to police officers confronting negligently created emergencies.

Facts

Brian Bordes, with a history of mental illness and escapes from Kings Park Psychiatric Center, was involuntarily committed after firing a rifle. Police requested notification upon his discharge due to outstanding warrants. Bordes escaped, and though the family and police were notified initially, the hospital later marked him “discharged” after 30 days, removing the alarm from police records. Bordes’ uncle informed Officer Santangelo of Bordes’ presence at his grandparents’ home. Santangelo and Kirschenheiter, unaware of Bordes’ escape status in their current records, responded. Bordes, found at the residence, produced a knife, and in the ensuing struggle to subdue him, both officers were injured.

Procedural History

The officers sued the State in the Court of Claims, alleging negligence and regulatory violations. The Court of Claims found the State negligent but denied recovery based on public policy. The Appellate Division affirmed. The Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal and affirmed the Appellate Division’s order.

Issue(s)

Whether police officers injured while apprehending an escaped mental patient can recover damages from the State for negligence in connection with the patient’s escape and the failure to properly notify the police of the patient’s dangerousness and escape status.

Holding

No, because public policy considerations, similar to those underlying the “firefighter’s rule,” preclude recovery for injuries sustained by police officers when confronting the very types of emergencies they are trained and compensated to handle.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals grounded its decision on public policy, drawing an analogy to the “firefighter’s rule,” which generally prevents firefighters from recovering damages for injuries sustained while fighting fires caused by negligence. The Court reasoned that like firefighters, police officers are experts trained and compensated to deal with emergencies and hazards, often created by negligence. Permitting recovery in such cases would result in the public paying damages for injuries sustained by the very professionals it employs to handle those situations. The court stated: “Apprehending an escaped mental patient— who may well have escaped owing to negligent supervision, and may well be dangerous — is a function particularly within the scope of duty of police officers.” They also noted that police officers receive training to minimize dangers and compensation/benefits to cover injuries sustained in the line of duty. The Court rejected the argument that the risk confronted exceeded what the officers assumed, clarifying that its decision was not based on comparative fault but on the policy considerations inherent in the nature of police work. The court emphasized the anomaly of allowing recovery against the State for injuries incurred while performing a core function of their job.