State high court allows lawsuit over 911 response
SEATTLE (AP) - The family of a man shot and killed by his neighbor in Skagit County can proceed to trial on claims that the county's emergency communications center mishandled its response to his panicked 911 call, Washington's Supreme Court ruled Thursday.
William R. Munich, a well-driller from Orcas Island, was on his property at Lake Campbell in October 2005 when the neighbor, Marvin Ballsmider, shot at him with a rifle. Ballsmider had been drinking and was upset that Munich asked him to stop driving his recreational vehicle across Munich's land to dump out its septic tank.
Munich, 63, called 911 and hid in a float plane hangar on his property. There were three cars inside, and he could have driven away, but the 911 operator told him that a deputy was en route and confirmed that Munich would wait.
However, the operator failed to code the call as an emergency, and the deputy didn't arrive as quickly as he could have.
Seven minutes later, Munich called 911 again. His neighbor had come into the hangar and flushed him out, he reported, and he was now running along Highway 20 as his neighbor chased after him in a car, firing out a window.
The call ended with the sound of Munich being shot to death. The deputy arrived 18 minutes after the initial call.
Munich's family sued Skagit County for wrongful death and presented evidence that had the call been coded as an emergency instead of a "priority 2 weapons call," the deputy would have arrived before Munich was killed.
The county sought to have the case dismissed on the grounds that it was immune from lawsuit under the public duty doctrine: that it did not owe a special duty to protect Munich any more than other members of the public, and thus was not liable for his death.
But the trial court and the appeals court declined to dismiss, and the Supreme Court affirmed their decision in an 8-1 decision. By promising that help was on the way, the court said in an opinion by Justice Mary Fairhurst, the 911 operator created a special relationship with Munich, and the county had a duty to fulfill its promise.
The family must still establish at trial that Munich relied on the promise when he remained in the hangar, and that the county breached its duty or acted negligently.
Five of the justices who signed the majority opinion also signed a concurrence by Justice Tom Chambers clarifying the court's case law and interpretation of the public duty doctrine.
In dissent, Justice James Johnson noted that the 911 operator never promised how quickly the deputy would arrive.
"I am concerned the majority's decision will put unwarranted pressure on every statement made by 911 operators, straining communications that depend on the free flow of information," Johnson wrote.
Munich had lived in the San Juan Islands for 32 years and eventually hoped to build a home on his Lake Campbell property. He left his wife, two grown children and four grandchildren.
Ballsmider died in prison.
William R. Munich, a well-driller from Orcas Island, was on his property at Lake Campbell in October 2005 when the neighbor, Marvin Ballsmider, shot at him with a rifle. Ballsmider had been drinking and was upset that Munich asked him to stop driving his recreational vehicle across Munich's land to dump out its septic tank.
Munich, 63, called 911 and hid in a float plane hangar on his property. There were three cars inside, and he could have driven away, but the 911 operator told him that a deputy was en route and confirmed that Munich would wait.
However, the operator failed to code the call as an emergency, and the deputy didn't arrive as quickly as he could have.
Seven minutes later, Munich called 911 again. His neighbor had come into the hangar and flushed him out, he reported, and he was now running along Highway 20 as his neighbor chased after him in a car, firing out a window.
The call ended with the sound of Munich being shot to death. The deputy arrived 18 minutes after the initial call.
Munich's family sued Skagit County for wrongful death and presented evidence that had the call been coded as an emergency instead of a "priority 2 weapons call," the deputy would have arrived before Munich was killed.
The county sought to have the case dismissed on the grounds that it was immune from lawsuit under the public duty doctrine: that it did not owe a special duty to protect Munich any more than other members of the public, and thus was not liable for his death.
But the trial court and the appeals court declined to dismiss, and the Supreme Court affirmed their decision in an 8-1 decision. By promising that help was on the way, the court said in an opinion by Justice Mary Fairhurst, the 911 operator created a special relationship with Munich, and the county had a duty to fulfill its promise.
The family must still establish at trial that Munich relied on the promise when he remained in the hangar, and that the county breached its duty or acted negligently.
Five of the justices who signed the majority opinion also signed a concurrence by Justice Tom Chambers clarifying the court's case law and interpretation of the public duty doctrine.
In dissent, Justice James Johnson noted that the 911 operator never promised how quickly the deputy would arrive.
"I am concerned the majority's decision will put unwarranted pressure on every statement made by 911 operators, straining communications that depend on the free flow of information," Johnson wrote.
Munich had lived in the San Juan Islands for 32 years and eventually hoped to build a home on his Lake Campbell property. He left his wife, two grown children and four grandchildren.
Ballsmider died in prison.
I work in the emergency system, and this kind of "dispatching" is criminal. I have found, myself, that some police dispatchers have let their own assessment of a call change it actual priority. This is NOT what a dispatcher is supposed to do.
Â
Now how about this for a thought though: Stop solely relying upon 911 or anyone else to help you when your life is at risk. Rely on the 2nd amendment to carry a firearm. Get yourself trained, practice with your weapon, and if the need ever arises, such as this man...defend yourself with deadly force. He had every right in the world to shoot and kill that man when he entered his hanger, and would be alive today if he had exercised that right.
Â
Rely upon yourselves people, its the only person you can truly trust.
This is why the wives and relatives of cops should not be 911 workers. They do not want their beloved cop relatives to ever be put in harm's way.
Â
I don't think I would have stayed under the circumstances. Having a way to escape with your life and deal with the neighbor later would have appealed more to me.
What a mess. Â This poor family deserves better than the county denying everything when it was the dispatchers miscategorizing that led to the delayed response. Â
Â
This is right up there with the prosecutor in Seattle trying to sue lawyers of victims of police beatings. Â Human Filth!!!
Â
emergency dispatchers have been taught for 20 years to be careful and not create a contractural agreement with the caller. They have been told to say,"I will tell the officer"but never say an officer will be there soon. Most ignore this advice because it is easier to make promises that provide some degree of comfort to the caller.
@memory9 --- If that is indeed true then someone should lose their job. Rules are there for a reason, Exhibit A above.Â
This is why we need to arm ourselves, You can not count on the police to show up as fast as you need them to.
I hope they win.
It surprises me the court came to this decision. SCOTUS has already ruled previously that the police and by extension, the dispatchers sending the police, have NO DUTY to protect you. Right or wrong, that was the ruling. Why I constantly state the only person you can count on to defend you is YOU. While I'd like to ensure the police are held to a standard of actually needing to try their best to help people who call them instead of just being able to say "Oh well, we aren't responsible for anything even though you pay for our services", this lawsuit will probably be struck down in a higher court.
@dg54321 --- you make a good point, but I believe (though I could be wrong) states can give greater protection, thus they could rule this way. However, if the SCOTUS said they DO OWE a duty to protect you, the states could not say, "NO duty is owed." Something to look into, I guess.Â
If people are forced to pay for police the police should be forced to protect people.
Â
A man was murdered in Philadelphia by a street gang because of a crass 911 operator who did  not feel his call was important.