The only reason they can sue HPD is because the only reason he had a gun with him is because he is a HPD officer and no private citizen is allowed to carry one. If CCW laws for the state were different and other people could carry firearms, HPD could argue that he was carrying a  civilian just like any one else can and as such his actions are not a representation of HPD.

With all the various types of immunity ("qualified", "absolute", "conditional", etc.) created by legislators to protect themselves and other government agents (e.g. cops, etc.) from being sued, I have no idea what HPD could be found liable for in a civil suit. I'm sure if this guy had a history of "issues" with alcohol (including possibly being "an alcoholic"), especially if witnessed by other cops, that he would have been subject to some sort of discipline and/or "intervention" by the department, right? If so, HPD obviously concluded, after evaluation, that he was fit for duty, including carrying a firearm, both on and off duty. I'm guessing a LOAD of taxpayer money will be spent on legal fees defending the officer/department and if they have even the slightest sense that things are NOT going (to go) well in the courtroom that they'll "settle" (with more of the taxpayers money, of course). I also predict that there will be no change in HPD policy regarding "substance abuse" problems by officers, as the union will make sure that random drug testing, random periodic psychological evaluations, etc. are banned. A few civilian casualties and a several million-taxpayer-dollar "settlements" are small prices to pay for cop "privacy" rights being upheld. [/sarc]

By that logic if a mcdonalds employee hits me with his car on his way to work in uniform i can sue mcdonalds ?


The only reason they can sue HPD is because the only reason he had a gun with him is because he is a HPD officer and no private citizen is allowed to carry one. If CCW laws for the state were different and other people could carry firearms, HPD could argue that he was carrying a  civilian just like any one else can and as such his actions are not a representation of HPD.

If the McDonald's employee is on the clock, maybe going to do a bank drop or pick up something from another store, then yes.  He was not on his own time, so the store, franchise, whatever is appropriate can be sued.

If the guy was just leaving work and clocked out, then McDonald's is technically okay.  However, the general legal tactic is to name McD's, the property owner if in a shopping center, and the company that striped the lines in the parking lot in the lawsuit!  The objective is to get those deep pocket companies to settle.  If each decides $10K-$20K is cheaper than defending against a $100K claim, they have justification to just pay and make it go away.

$20K x 3 "pigeons" = a good pay day!

I've read where someone who slipped and fell in a mall food court due to a small spot of liquid another customer had just spilled sued the mall, the security company, the janitorial service, and every single company operating in the food court!  It's a racket!

Because the officer wears a badge, and the injured party is allowed to sue the employer of the individual.  That's civil law 101.  Employers may be sued for the negligence of one of its employees.  You drive a mail truck and hit someone, the person you hit can (and will) sue the Post Office for damages.

Do some research.

As the adage goes, you can sue anyone for anything. But that doesn't mean you will win. The plaintiff needs to show some negligence on the part of those named.  The only real chance is if she can prove the department knew of his alcohol problem and didn't take reasonable action. Absent that where did the department do anything wrong?

As the adage goes, you can sue anyone for anything. But that doesn't mean you will win. The plaintiff needs to show some negligence on the part of those named.  The only real chance is if she can prove the department knew of his alcohol problem and didn't take reasonable action. Absent that where did the department do anything wrong?

Why do you separate the Cop from the Department?  He's a law enforcement employee and representative.  He's allowed to carry guns off duty due to a department policy. 

Negligence on the part of the officer is directly attributable to the department since he's a representative and carrying a firearm under their authorization. 

He has a history of showing off his firearm in public.  If anyone in the force knew this and reported it, then yes, the department has some negligence by not disciplining him.

The fact that he liked to show off his gun in public is proof that he is an asshole.  I spent 5 days in Vegas and stayed in the same hotel room with my friend and he never knew I was carrying or even had a handgun with me.  He only found out when we were checking in for the return flight and I had to notify the agent and open my suitcase.  I showed him my permit after that and he was cool with it. 

The bartender that got shot can sue the show off idiot personally.  Don't know what kind of assets he has, but his HPD pension can be garnisheed even if HPD is absolved of any wrongdoing.  Bottom line is she will get a substantial amount but it might be over time if HPD is not found liable.  If I was a juror, I would find HPD at least 75% liable.

I dont agree. I think it was entirely his liability. HPD shouldve fired him instead of let him retire. Anyways we taxpayers will be paying for it.

I dont agree. I think it was entirely his liability. HPD shouldve fired him instead of let him retire. Anyways we taxpayers will be paying for it.

The unions won't allow that unless he's charged with something serious and found guilty. 

As far as they are concerned, if you earn a pension, you deserve it unless you do something intentional and egregious.

If the McDonald's employee is on the clock, maybe going to do a bank drop or pick up something from another store, then yes.  He was not on his own time, so the store, franchise, whatever is appropriate can be sued.

If the guy was just leaving work and clocked out, then McDonald's is technically okay.  However, the general legal tactic is to name McD's, the property owner if in a shopping center, and the company that striped the lines in the parking lot in the lawsuit!  The objective is to get those deep pocket companies to settle.  If each decides $10K-$20K is cheaper than defending against a $100K claim, they have justification to just pay and make it go away.

$20K x 3 "pigeons" = a good pay day!

I've read where someone who slipped and fell in a mall food court due to a small spot of liquid another customer had just spilled sued the mall, the security company, the janitorial service, and every single company operating in the food court!  It's a racket!

Its common. I worked as. PI for insurance companies. All they look at is cost. I found complainants 100% liable and workers comp claimants functioning fine.

Why do you separate the Cop from the Department?  He's a law enforcement employee and representative.  He's allowed to carry guns off duty due to a department policy. 

Negligence on the part of the officer is directly attributable to the department since he's a representative and carrying a firearm under their authorization. 

He has a history of showing off his firearm in public.  If anyone in the force knew this and reported it, then yes, the department has some negligence by not disciplining him.

Of course you can separate the cop from the department. That is why they have conduct rules. The rules protect the cop if he follows them and they protect the department if he breaks them.

Negligence only comes if either the department failed to train the offer, or if they knew of a problem and failed to discipline the officer. If allegations are true that they knew of a misbehavior and failed to address it then yes, a case for negligence could be made. But we will need to wait for trial to figure out whether those allegations are true. And even if they were the court can breakdown the responsibility. Say that the officer was 90% responsible and department 10% responsible.

I dont agree. I think it was entirely his liability. HPD shouldve fired him instead of let him retire. Anyways we taxpayers will be paying for it.

That could be even more cost to the department and therefore to the taxpayers. Lets say they fire him and he fights it, the department has to spend time and money in court. As noted it is often cheaper to settle than to fight even if you win.