Editorial: Rework the state caps on liability

Thursday, Sept. 25, 2003 | 9 a.m.

Three years ago a Las Vegas woman and her husband were driving back to their apartment after an evening out when tragedy struck. A Metro Police officer, rushing to support another officer investigating a possible burglary, sped through a stop sign at Edmond Street and Reno Avenue just as the couple were moving slowly through the intersection. Even though the officer's lights and siren were on, a collision could not be avoided. The woman suffered a head injury so severe she was on life support for three days. She then spent a year in rehabilitation, re-learning speech and basic life skills. Now in her mid-30s, she has the mental capacity of a 13-year-old because of the accident.

Her medical expenses, most of which are not covered by insurance, have reached nearly $120,000. A lawsuit filed by the woman against Metro Police, however, resulted in a settlement of only $110,000, out of which she had to pay her attorney. Evidence clearly demonstrated that the accident was not the fault of the couple. It also came out that the Metro officer was violating policy. Officers responding to emergencies are permitted to roll through stop signs or red lights, but not to speed through them as this officer was doing.

Given all the facts, it would be reasonable to say that the woman should have been awarded an amount several times more than her immediate medical expenses, particularly considering the lasting brain damage. Unfortunately for the woman, however, she was hit by a government employee. In order to protect taxpayers from large settlements, state law limits the amount of liability against public employees to $50,000. The woman's lawyer in the case argued that the woman's civil rights had been violated and got federal courts involved -- that's the only reason she received an additional $60,000.

The woman in this case is by no means the first person to receive a grossly inadequate settlement because of the state's cap, which hasn't increased since 1979. A cap is necessary to safeguard the ability of state and local governments to provide services, but the 2005 Legislature should consider increasing it to reflect the current economy. Additionally, the Legislature should amend the law to allow the cap to be waived in extraordinary cases. This woman's case is an example of one that should have been decided by a judge or jury, not by an inflexible state law.