Today news outlets are reporting that two news helicopters in Phoenix that were covering a police chase collided, killing all 4 passengers on the two helicopters. The police were chasing someone who had stolen a pickup truck and a trailer. This is a horrible and senseless tragedy. However, I can't agree with the Phoenix police chief who states that the thief, who was eventually caught, will be held responsible for any of the deaths from this tragedy."
Now, I've been watching Law & Order for a long time, and I've seen Jack McCoy stretch to indict remote defendants for their "reckless disregard for human life," but I'm not sure if he would go here. I understand that someone leading police in a car chase would be responsible for deaths involving other cars, pedestrians, and police vehicles in the vicinity of the chase. I could also see where the suspect might be responsible for deaths caused by a police helicopter. But I think I would draw the line at the news helicopter. The news helicopters do not have to be there for public safety; they are not there by happenstance like a bystander. Instead, the news outlets have chosen to go to the chase for hope of commercial profit. Would the suspect be responsible if the helicopter went down because of bad maintenance? Human error? Gross negligence on the part of the pilots, trying to get as close as possible to the action? If I saw the chase come on TV in another room and ran to watch, would the suspect be responsible if I tripped over something and broke my leg? Where does the chain stop? I would be interested to hear what others think.
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8345157d569e200e3981d787a8833
Links to weblogs that reference Should Vehicle Thief Be Responsible for News Helicopter Crash?:
1. Posted by k on July 28, 2007 @ 14:24 | Permalink
This reminds me of a case I read in Criminal Law, People v. Acosta. The facts sound eerily similar, in fact. I don't recall if the helicopters in Acosta were news helicopters or police helicopters, though. If I recall correctly, that case held that the car's driver (Acosta) did not act with malice such that he could be charged with a crime of intent. There may have also been a negligence charge, though. Hm. Now I may have to go dig that case up.
2. Posted by Jake on July 28, 2007 @ 17:51 | Permalink
That an alleged perp on the lam should face imprisonment or worse because a media helicopter crashes while following the perp is absolutely surreal. Civil liability should likewise be out of the question, but you never know with California law.
3. Posted by Kate Litvak on July 28, 2007 @ 18:10 | Permalink
I should add that just before the two helicopters collided, one of the pilots had a heart attack and fell on the dashboard, causing electric outage, and his co-pilot, thinking that the pilot was dead, tossed his body out the window, and the tossed but still-alive pilot happened to have a licensed gun in his pocket, and landed on the playground of an elementary school, except the town just ruled the school to be unsanitary and therefore shut down as of midnight of the day of landing, but neither parents nor teachers were aware of it, so the school was still illegally in session when the still-alive pilot landed there with his gun. All in a jurisdiction where tossing dead bodies off helicopters is not a felony; gun possession on school grounds is a felony; aiding and abetting in delivery of guns to school grounds is a felony; and running an unlicensed school is a misdemeanor.
4. Posted by Anthony on July 29, 2007 @ 11:09 | Permalink
Would it be really smarmy to observe that this is probably why the guy is a police chief rather than a lawyer?
5. Posted by Scott Moss on July 29, 2007 @ 16:02 | Permalink
Not that RICO is directly applicable, but in Anza v Ideal, the Sup Ct gave a narrow definition of "proximate cause" that, if applied to News Copter crashes "caused" by criminals they're following, would kill any legal claim here....
And if you substitute "train" for "helicopter," I think Kate just gave the fact pattern of that Palsgraf case.
6. Posted by Jake on July 30, 2007 @ 19:08 | Permalink
As a proximate causation problem, it's not a Palsgraf analogue. Try Petition of Kinsman Transit, a well reasoned opinion by the late Judge Friendly.
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |||
| 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 |
| 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 |
| 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 |
| 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 |
