View Single Post
Old April 3, 2012, 04:48 PM   #12
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,819
With respect to these:
Quote:
Originally Posted by kinggabby
I smell a huge lawsuit brewing on a big burner.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edward429451
. . . .It sounds like she ordered him back to the scene for the convenience of the cops. I'd also bet money that nothing happens to the dispatcher. They take care of their own. . . .
Like kinggabby, I think that a lawsuit's a-coming. The family and estate may or may not win, but some attorney will likely take the case on contingency, even if only to shake a settlement out.

I partially agree and partially disagree with Edward429451. It certainly does sound like the dispatcher ordered the victim back to the scene for the convenience of the responding police. I'll have to be on the other side of the bet as to whether anything happens to the dispatcher, though, and here's why:
Quote:
Originally Posted by CBS Denver, quoting Denver 911 Director Carl Simpson
The 911 communications department held a news conference Monday afternoon. Denver 911 Director Carl Simpson said the operator in the case did not follow the policies and procedures while he was on the 911 call; specifically instructing the men to return to Denver in order to file a police report.

Simpson wouldn’t go in to the specifics of the call but says it’s clear that policies were not followed.
Liability will not attach to a city unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that the city had a policy, practice or custom which caused a deprivation of the plaintiff's rights. Throwing the dispatcher (or other city employee) under the bus as having failed to follow procedures is one way to protect the city from liability.
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some.
Spats McGee is offline  
 
Page generated in 0.03089 seconds with 8 queries