## Facts

- Around 1:00 a.m. on October 12, 1945, a Philadelphia police officer drove a police vehicle southbound on Sixth Street while transporting a prematurely born infant to a hospital.
- The officer entered an intersection against a red traffic signal at an estimated 45 m.p.h.
- The police vehicle approached and entered the intersection without sounding a siren or other audible warning.
- A privately owned automobile carrying the civilian plaintiffs entered the intersection on a green light.
- The vehicles collided in the intersection, causing personal injuries and property damage.
- The civilians sued the officer, the officer’s wife (as owner of the police vehicle), and the City of Philadelphia, asserting negligence and municipal responsibility for conduct within the scope of duty.
- A jury returned verdicts for the plaintiffs; defendants sought judgment n.o.v. or a new trial and appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether statutory emergency-vehicle privileges excused a police officer from liability when he ran a red light at high speed without an audible warning and collided with a vehicle proceeding on a green light.
2. Whether the evidence permitted a finding that the officer failed to act with “due regard” for others or acted with “reckless disregard” so that statutory privileges did not apply.
3. Whether the City of Philadelphia could be held liable for the officer’s negligent operation of the police vehicle while acting within the scope of employment.

## Decision

- The Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed the judgments entered on the jury’s verdicts for the plaintiffs.
- The court held that emergency-vehicle privileges did not provide absolute immunity from tort liability.
- The court concluded the evidence supported a jury finding that the officer’s conduct was at least negligent and could be found reckless, given the speed, the red light, and the absence of an audible warning.
- The court held the City could be held liable for the officer’s tortious conduct committed in the course of his duties; the emergency purpose did not bar liability.

## Legal Principles

- Statutory exemptions allowing emergency vehicles to disregard certain traffic controls are conditional and require operation “with due regard for the safety of all persons” using the highway.
- Emergency-vehicle statutes do not protect an operator from the consequences of “reckless disregard of the safety of others” or from an arbitrary assertion of right of way.
- A police officer’s performance of official duties does not eliminate the duty of care at intersections.
- A municipality may be liable for negligent operation of a municipal vehicle by an employee acting within the scope of employment, even during an emergency response.
- “Recklessness” involves conscious appreciation of the probable danger or risk incident to the contemplated conduct and proceeding despite that awareness.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed liability where a police officer, though engaged in an emergency transport, entered a red-light-controlled intersection at high speed without an audible warning, because emergency driving privileges require due regard for others and do not excuse negligent or reckless conduct; the City could also be held responsible for the officer’s torts committed in the course of duty.


La Marra v. Adam, 164 Pa. Super. 268, 63 A.2d 497 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1949)