Ridgeway Unified Courts

JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF RIDGEWAY

Searchable full text

6,771 characters extracted

—

THE STATE OF RIDGEWAY RIDGEWAY SUPERIOR COURT JUSTTHEJUDGE1, Plaintiff, vs. THEORIGINALSHERIFTOM, a Patrol Officer in the Palmer Police Department, in his individual capacity. Defendant Case No. RSC-CV-3340 CIVIL COMPLAINT Presiding Judge: Hon. Magistrate ArthurSprings INTRODUCTION Plaintiff Justthejudge1 (“Plaintiff”), by and through undersigned counsel hereby brings this action against Defendant TheOriginalsheriftom (“Defendant”) in his individual capacity and to substantiate his claim alleges the following: JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. The Court has original jurisdiction over this Complaint under Article V, Section IV of the Ridgeway Constitution. 2. Venue is proper in this Court because the tortious actions alleged in this Complaint occurred in Ridgeway County, State of Ridgeway. PARTIES 3. Plaintiff Jusththejudge1 is a resident and citizen of the State of Ridgeway. 4. Defendant TheOriginalsheriftom is a resident and citizen of the State of Ridgeway. Defendant, upon information and belief, was a Patrol Officer with the Palmer Police Department, an agency of the City of Palmer. 2 FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 5. On the 26th of July, 2024, Plaintiff’s vehicle was parked on a road near the Ridgeway County Transit Authority’s (“RCTA”) Bus Depot in the township of Palmer. 6. Plaintiff was observing an active crime scene and was about to leave the scene. 7. As Plaintiff was entering the driver seat of his “Rodeo” truck, Defendant, in an unmarked Palmer Police Department-issued (“PPD”) vehicle, proceeded to ram into the back of the Plaintiff’s vehicle. 8. The resulting collision led to the Plaintiff’s vehicle to violently accelerate, causing the right side of the vehicle to make contact with a mound on the side of the pavement. Breach of § 7.01 9. Defendant, as a driver, owes a duty of care to both other drivers on the road and pedestrians and more so as a law enforcement officer, being aware of the law. 10. Defendant, by breaching this duty of care, also breached the Ridgeway State Vehicle Code, specifically, vehicle code § 7.01 which reads; “The act of operating a motor vehicle without care or regard for others.”. 11. Defendant breached this statute by operating his motor vehicle “without care or regard for others” – by failing to use his brakes when approaching the Plaintiff’s vehicle–. 12. Plaintiff recognises that because the Defendant was responding to an active scene which required his attention, his actions were not intentional. 3 13. However, Plaintiff still affirms that the Defendant very cavalierly operated his motor vehicle, leading to the property-threatening and life-threatening collision. Breach of § 7.02. 14. Moreover, the Defendant again breached his duty of care prescribed by Ridgeway State Vehicle Code § 7.02, specifically; “driving in a manner which disregards the safety of person or property in their vicinity”. 15. The Defendant breached the statutory requirement laid out by § 7.02 by driving in a manner which led to collision with another person’s property. Breach of § 7.16 16. The Defendant again breached his duty of care prescribed by Ridgeway State Vehicle Code § 7.16 (which is a felony); “The act of operating an emergency vehicle without care which could lead to unintended private/public property damage or bodily injury”. 17. The Defendant breached the statutory requirement of driving an emergency vehicle safely by; (a) operating a Palmer Police Department cruiser—an emergency vehicle– (b) without care—through failure of using his brakes— (c ) which lead to damage to the Plaintiff’s car (his private property), and bodily injury to the Plaintiff. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION Negligence per se - 1 R. Stat. § 3106 18. Plaintiff incorporates the allegations within all prior paragraphs within this Complaint as if they were fully set wherein. 4 19. Whereas, negligence per se is defined in 1 R. Stat. § 3106 as; ‘‘1 R. Stat. § 3106 ("Any individual who is prescribed a duty by statute or administrative policy, and that individual breached such statute or administrative policy resulted in injury against another individual is negligence per se’’. 20. Whereas, Defendant is prescribed a duty by statutes § 7.16, § 7.01 and § 7.02. Essentially, his duty prescribed by the statutes is the opposite of the language of the statute. 21. Defendant breached his duty to operate his motor vehicle with regard to others, prescribed by § 7.01 of the Ridgeway State Vehicle Code which reads as follows; “The act of operating a motor vehicle without care or regard for others.”. See also paragraph 10 of this complaint. 22. Defendant breached this duty by operating his vehicle without care or regard for others, driving recklessly and refraining from using his brakes when coming in vicinity of other vehicles. By doing so, his actions were without care or regard for the safety of other persons and their properties. 23. Accordingly, Defendant is liable for $3,000.00 in compensatory and punitive damages. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION Negligence per se - 1 R. Stat. § 3106 24. Plaintiff incorporates the allegations within all prior paragraphs within this Complaint as if they were fully set wherein. 25. See paragraph 20 of this complaint. 26. Defendant breached his duty to refrain from ‘‘driving in a manner which disregards the safety of person or property in their vicinity’’ see § 7.02. 5 27. Defendant refrained from using his brakes, this behavior disregarded the safety of the Plaintiff’s person and property (his vehicle). See paragraphs 14-15. 28. Accordingly, Defendant is liable for $3,000.00 in compensatory and punitive damages. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION Negligence per se - 1 R. Stat. § 3106 29. Plaintiff incorporates the allegations within all prior paragraphs within this Complaint as if they were fully set wherein. 30. See paragraph 20 of this complaint. 31. Defendant breached his duty to refrain from operating his Palmer Police Department cruiser (an emergency vehicle) ‘‘without care which could lead to unintended private/public property damage or bodily injury”. See paragraphs 16-17. 32. Defendant operated his emergency vehicle without care, which led to unintended damage to the Plaintiff’s private property (his vehicle).# 33. Accordingly, Defendant is liable for $3,000.00 in compensatory and punitive damages. PRAYERS FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendant as follows– A. Plaintiff requests nine-thousand-dollars ($9,000.00) in punitive damages. B. For such, or other, or different legal and equitable relief the 6 Court may deem necessary. CENTER FOR INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS /s/______________________ Singhski, Esq. (d/b/a Pahulpal Lakwhinder Singh) Ridgeway Bar No.25100 Counsel of Record President, Center for Individual Rights T: (505) 503-4455 E:[email protected]

Amended_complaint_.pdf

Original document

Searchable full text

Document record