Emergency vehicles are always on the road and sometimes accidents happen.
New York’s highest court continues to reinforce just how demanding the “reckless disregard” standard is when it comes to emergency vehicle liability.
In a recent decision, the Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment in favor of a police officer involved in an intersection collision while responding to an emergency. The takeaway is not new—but it is sharp: even imperfect decision-making in the moment will not, without more, rise to recklessness.
The facts matter. Responding to a call involving a separate motor vehicle accident with heavy damage and unknown injuries, the deputy approached a red light, maneuvered around stopped traffic, slowed, came to a complete stop at least once, activated emergency lights, and proceeded only after observing cross-traffic yield. There were disputes—whether she used a siren or air horn, whether she called in the required “Code 77,” and whether her view of oncoming traffic was obstructed or insufficiently checked. For purposes of the appeal, the Court assumed those disputes in plaintiffs’ favor.
Even so, the claim failed.
Why? Because Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104 does more than grant privileges—it elevates the liability threshold. Once an officer is engaged in an “emergency operation,” liability attaches only upon proof of “reckless disregard for the safety of others,” not ordinary negligence. That is a materially higher bar, requiring proof of conduct undertaken with conscious indifference to a known or obvious risk so great that harm is highly probable.
The Court’s analysis is instructive. It did not ignore the alleged lapses—no siren, no Code 77, possible obstructed view. Instead, it evaluated those alleged failures alongside what the officer indisputably did: slow down, stop, activate lights, and proceed cautiously after some traffic yielded. Taking together, that record did not support the finding of conscious indifference. At most, it suggested a momentary lapse in judgment—legally insufficient as a matter of law.
Two additional points are worth emphasizing for practitioners:
• Statutory privileges vs. internal policy. The Court reiterated that internal departmental policies—such as requirements to activate sirens or call in specific codes—do not set the legal standard of care where they exceed it. A policy violation, standing alone, will not establish recklessness.
• Police-specific exemption. Unlike other emergency vehicles, police are not statutorily required to activate audible signals to invoke § 1104’s protections. That distinction continues to carry real weight in litigation.
For plaintiffs, this decision underscores the difficulty of surviving summary judgment absent evidence that squarely meets the recklessness threshold. For municipalities and defense counsel, it reinforces a familiar but powerful theme: evidence of precaution—even if imperfect—can be dispositive.
Bottom line: the line between negligence and recklessness in this context remains wide, and the Court of Appeals is not narrowing it.
Our team at Gerber Ciano Kelly Brady is highly experienced in all facets of municipal liability, providing strategic defense and insightful counsel to those navigating these complex statutory protections. If you have questions about how this ruling affects your current matters or wish to discuss a specific case, we invite you to contact us today to learn how our expertise can work for you.
