What Is ‘Reckless Disregard’ Under VTL §1104?

The New York State Vehicle and Traffic Law (hereinafter VTL) governs the operation of automobiles on public highways. A driver whose violation of the VTL causes injury is liable for such injury under an ordinary negligence standard. VTL §1104 exempts drivers of “authorized emergency vehicle[s]” from portions of the traffic code while the driver is engaged in an “emergency operation.” Kabir v. County of Monroe, 16 N.Y.3d 217 (2011). VTL §101 includes, within the definition of “authorized emergency vehicle,” police, fire and corrections vehicles, and ambulances. Drivers of such vehicles, while engaged in “emergency operations,” are permitted to stop, park or stand their vehicles, proceed through red lights and stop signs, travel in excess of speed limits, and otherwise maneuver irrespective of proscriptions on such activities. VTL §1104(b)(1)-(4). VTL §1104(e) specifies “[t]he foregoing provisions shall not relieve the driver of an authorized emergency vehicle from the duty to drive with due regard for the safety of all persons, nor shall such provisions protect the driver from the consequences of his reckless disregard for the safety of others” (emphasis supplied). Drivers of emergency vehicles engaged in emergency operations will still be held liable only “if their reckless exercise of a privilege granted by [VTL §1104(b)] causes personal injuries or property damage.” Kabir, 16 N.Y.3d 217.

The recklessness standard is a much higher burden of proof for a plaintiff to reach than an ordinary negligence standard. A court will find recklessness only where “the actor has intentionally done an act of unreasonable character in disregard of a known or obvious risk that was so great as to make it highly possible that harm would follow and has done so with conscious indifference to the outcome.” Saarinen v. Kerr, 84 N.Y.2d 494 (1994). Courts will consider the circumstances giving rise to the emergency operation, the events which transpire before a collision, and police department policies regarding driving in emergency situations. Road conditions, and the nature of the roadway or the neighborhood in which the collision occurred, are also considered. It has been said that “whether a defendant acted with ‘reckless disregard’ is a ‘fact-specific inquiry,’ and that courts must balance the driver’s precautionary measures against the urgency of the situation demanding the response. Frezzell v. City of New York, 24 N.Y.3d 213 (2014).

Cases Which Do Not Evidence Reckless Disregard