Supreme Court
Seward v. Santander
- Case number: 23-0704
- Legal category: Negligence
- Subtype: Duty
- Set for oral argument: December 5, 2024
Case Summary
The issues include (1) when an off-duty officer working for a private employer is considered to be on duty; (2) whether negligence claims by police officers responding to a request for assistance should have been pleaded as premises-liability claims; and (3) whether the common law “firefighter rule” applies.
Chad Seward was an off-duty police officer employed by Point 2 Point and assigned to work at a Home Depot store. He was asked by a Home Depot employee to issue a criminal trespass warning to a suspected shoplifter. Following police department procedures, Seward checked the suspect for outstanding warrants and then called for assistance. Two officers responded and guarded the suspect while Seward confirmed the warrant. The suspect pulled a gun and shot the officers, killing one and injuring the other.
The officers sued Seward, Home Depot, and Point 2 Point under various negligence theories. The trial court dismissed the claims against Seward based on the Tort Claims Act’s election of remedies, concluding that he was on duty. The trial court later granted Home Depot’s and Point 2 Point’s motions for summary judgment.
The court of appeals largely reversed. Among other things, it concluded a genuine fact issue exists as to whether Seward was on duty before he confirmed the suspect’s warrant. The court of appeals also rejected Home Depot’s other arguments for summary judgment, including that the officers’ claims sound only in premises liability and that the firefighter rule applies.
Seward, Home Depot, and Point 2 Point petitioned for review. Seward and Point 2 Point argue that Seward was on duty during his entire encounter with the suspect. Home Depot challenges the various grounds on which the court of appeals reversed the trial court’s summary judgment.
The Supreme Court granted the petition.
Case summaries are created by the Court's staff attorneys and law clerks and do not constitute the Court’s official descriptions or statements. Readers are encouraged to review the Court’s official opinions for specifics regarding each case.