Plaintiff's father was killed after a driver consumed numerous alcoholic beverages, stole a vehicle, and ran a red light at the speed of approximately 50 M.P.H. while being chased by Officer Whaley. Officer Whaley's chase of the driver lasted approximately 1.5 miles and, though the record was not exactly clear as to how close Officer Whaley was following the driver at the time of the collision, the record was clear that Officer Whaley remained at some distance. Initially, the two were driving in a rural area on Maryland Route 213 where the speed limit was 40 M.P.H. The speed of the pursuit averaged 50 to 55 M.P.H. after approximately 1.5 miles, the criminal led Officer Whaley into Centreville where the speed limit dropped to 25 M.P.H., and shortly after entering the town limits, the accident occurred.

Plaintiff contended that Officer Whaley failed to exercise reasonable care in pursuing the driver in that his negligence proximately caused the accident. Because Plaintiff failed to identify sufficient aggravating circumstances to indicate that the pursuit was something other than a routine police pursuit of a suspected criminal, the court concluded that Officer Whaley's conduct did not amount to negligence.

A police officer owes others on the roadway a duty of care and owes a duty of care to a plaintiff injured by suspected criminals fleeing the officers if the officers set in motion a chain of events which they knew or should have known would lead to the plaintiff's injury by the criminals or by the police effort to stop the vehicle. Thus, a police officer owes a bystander a duty of care if he placed them within a zone of danger, within reasonable justification, and if he set in motion a chain of events which he knew or should have known would lead to the plaintiff's injuries.

A police officer's actions should not be judged with hindsight, but according to how a reasonable prudent police officer would respond faced with the same difficult emergency situation. Therefore, where an officer is negligent there are usually aggravating circumstances. Considered in light of the standard outlined above, Officer Whaley's pursuit of the driver was not negligent. Specifically, the chase never exceed 55 M.P.H., his emergency equipment was activated during the pursuit, once he reached the Town of Centreville he dropped his speed to approximately 40 M.P.H., and the entire pursuit lasted approximately four minutes. Therefore, there were insufficient aggravating factors upon which a reasonable jury could conclude that Officer Whaley set in motion a chain of events which he knew or should have known would lead to Plaintiff's father's death. A different conclusion would place upon the police a duty to protect each and every member of the public from suspected criminals. The slightest error by an officer would become the subject of litigation. Were that to occur, courts would in effect be placing handcuffs on the officers, not the culprits.

Though it was undeniable that Officer Whaley's pursuit ended in a terrible tragedy, a police officer's decisions must be evaluated from the time the decisions were made, not in hindsight. For these reasons, Judge Motz concluded that there was no dispute of material as to the reasonableness of Officer Whaley's actions, and therefore Centreville was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.