For On-Job Injuries
Cops Given Broader Right to Bring Suit

By REUVEN BLAU

In a precedent-setting ruling, a Queens Supreme Court Justice decided last week that an NYPD officer can sue the drunk driver who caused an accident that brought her to a scene where she was later hit by another reckless motorist who sped past flares she had set up.

The ruling, which could be a landmark decision if upheld in higher courts, greatly expanded the zone of who law-enforcement officers can sue, said attorney Joseph L. Decolator, who is representing retired Police Officer Maureen Cerati.

Surprised Him

"This is something that I haven't seen in the Second Department," he added. "The injured officer could sue the indirect cause of the accident."

The incident occurred on Aug. 1, 2005 after Oscar I. Berrios's Volkswagen skidded onto the shoulder of the Belt Parkway near Lefferts Boulevard and overturned. Officer Cerati, who has since retired on 3/4 disability, responded to the scene and set up flares to warn oncoming traffic.

Shortly afterwards, another driver ran past the lit warnings and struck her, causing serious injuries. "She was in the hospital for a month," Mr. Decolator said, noting that she suffered multiple fractures and a collapsed lung.

She sued the driver of the car who struck her and settled for $25,000, the minimum insurance policy, according to Mr. Decolator. But she also sued Mr. Berrios, arguing that he was a "proximate cause" of the accident.

Justice James P. Dollard ruled last week that the suit against Mr. Berrios - who was convicted of vehicular manslaughter for the death of the passenger in his car - could proceed.

Violation Triggers Right

The two-page decision cited General Municipal Law 205-e, which allows Police Officers to sue their employer for injuries suffered in the line of duty in certain scenarios.

Mr. Decolator, who actually drafted sections of that law in mid-1990s, argued that the statute created a cause of action for legal action. Mr. Berrios's lawyer attempted to get the case tossed, contending that his client didn't do anything to Officer Cerati because his car was already overturned on the road when she arrived.

Justice Dollard, however, ruled that there was enough of a connection to allow the case to proceed. "To make a claim under section 205-e, a plaintiff is not required to show the same degree of proximate cause as is required in a common-law negligence action," he said. "Rather, the substantial case law that has developed on the subject holds that a plaintiff need only establish a 'practical or reasonable connection' between the statutory or regulatory violation and the claimed injury."

Crime Triggered Right

Mr. Berrios's conviction for vehicular manslaughter established the statutory violation, he added. "This violation of law led plaintiff, as a Police Officer, to respond and in setting up the flares and securing the scene, the accident occurred," Justice Dollard ruled. "Thus, an indirect connection between Oscar Berrios's statutory violation and plaintiff's injuries was raised, creating a jury question regarding the sufficiency of that connection."

The decision was hailed by another lawyer in Mr. Decolator's firm. "This is fascinating law that could go a great way towards helping Police Officers injured in the line of duty," asserted Neil Cohen.