Tony Woolfolk v. St. Louis County

St. Louis, personal injury car wreck lawyer represented the Plaintiff on an auto negligence wrongful death theory.

On the evening of August 10, 2018, Officers Maloy and Jakob saw a silver 2003 Hyundai Elantra, driven by Mikel Neil, run a red light when turning left onto Airport Road in St. Louis County. The Officers were on duty but were traveling outside their specifically assigned patrol area. As the driver of the marked police vehicle, Officer Maloy turned on the emergency lights to initiate a traffic stop, but did not activate the siren. Neil did not stop his vehicle and instead began driving erratically. The Officers commenced pursuit, however they violated St. Louis County police policy because they did not inform dispatch of their decision. They followed as Neil violated traffic signals, weaved in and out of traffic and drove at speeds up to 90 miles per hour ("mph") which exceeded the 35-mph speed limit posted on Airport Road.



As the vehicle neared Tyndall Drive, Neil swerved into oncoming traffic, forcing other drivers to swerve out of his path and before crashing into a tree. The parties dispute whether Officer Maloy purposefully hit Neil's Elantra from behind in what is commonly referred to as a PIT maneuver, an action that preceded the crash. The entire pursuit lasted approximately forty seconds. After the crash, Officer Maloy turned off the emergency lights and continued to drive

past the Elantra, through the debris field, without rendering aid. Woolfolk and Neil died at the scene. Autopsies revealed that at the time of the accident Woolfolk and the driver were intoxicated, testing positive for fentanyl and cocaine.



Woolfolk's family brought a wrongful death action in the circuit court against Officers Jakob and Maloy individually, and against their employer, St. Louis County, under a theory of respondeat superior. Their petition alleged that the defendants violated their duty to operate the police cruiser or the emergency vehicle with the highest degree of care and their negligent conduct during the pursuit caused Woolfolk's death. The Officers and the County both moved for summary judgment on the basis that the Officers did not owe a duty to the decedent, and that plaintiffs cannot prove that the alleged negligence was the proximate cause of decedent's injuries. The Officers further argued that their actions were protected by official immunity and the public duty doctrine. The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants. This appeal follows.

Summary judgment for Defendant.



Affirmed.