Police officers don’t want suspects to get away, but at what point do the dangers of a vehicle chase outweigh the benefits? The “precision immobilization technique” (PIT) is anything but precise. It involves a police vehicle hitting the other vehicle’s rear quarter, sending it spinning or rolling out of control and potentially striking anything in its path. If you’re injured by a police officer who acts negligently while performing their duties, you may be entitled to compensation.

PIT, recently re-branded after bad publicity as “tactical vehicle intervention” (TVI), has gotten many people killed and injured. That can include those in the car leading the chase, police officers, and bystanders. This technique is especially hazardous when vehicles travel high speed through congested areas. Police in Kentucky use PIT.

Most of the time, PIT maneuvers are used without fatalities. They have enabled officers to detain dangerous suspects. But is this benefit worth the risks?

PIT Maneuvers Create Situations Where People are Killed

The video at the start of this San Francisco Examiner article on PIT demonstrates what can happen when the technique is used on a pickup truck traveling about 100 miles an hour. The truck driver was killed. Amazingly, the police officer involved was only injured after his cruiser was propelled about 15 feet into the air.

The article recounts how four people were killed after PIT was used. None of them were driving the fleeing vehicle:

• In upstate New York, an SUV flipped over an interstate median, ejecting an 11-year-old passenger. The vehicle landed on her and killed her
• A motorcyclist was struck and hurtled off an eastern Iowa road, throwing the 31-year-old rider into a cornfield
• A pickup spun off a northern Georgia road into an ATV. It hit the rider so strongly that it knocked him out of one of his sneakers
• A Georgia grandmother in her front yard was struck and killed by a vehicle struck by police

In April, Florida police pursued a stolen SUV with passengers inside, reports WKYT. A state trooper performed a PIT maneuver, which caused the vehicle to roll over and strike a cement pole. All four teens inside (14 and 16 years old) were killed.

The Death Toll Climbs

The Examiner estimates that since 2017, at least 87 people were killed after police officers rammed vehicles they chased, often at high speeds. Nearly half (37), including seven children, weren’t driving the target vehicle. They were passengers or bystanders.

Deaths caused by these incidents are on the rise. The newspaper states ten people were killed in the first six months of 2024. That’s the most in any six-month period studied by the Examiner.

Most major police departments limit the maneuver to situations where vehicles travel no faster than 45 mph, while others have few restrictions on PIT use.  Court records, police reports, and news articles show that of the 37 killed, 20 were killed in chases of at least 90 mph, and six were killed when vehicles were going at least 120.

Only one in eight of the total deaths involved a pursuit that started due to a suspected violent crime. Most fatalities were caused after officers performed PIT maneuvers during chases after alleged low-level or nonviolent crimes.

How Seriously Should Police Department Take PIT Maneuvers?

There are no uniform PIT use standards. Some police departments consider PIT the use of deadly force, especially at high speeds, like firing a gun. That results in stricter rules for its use and follow-up investigations to determine whether officers acted appropriately. Other departments consider it a routine tactic that requires little training.

A personal injury case based on negligence could involve a situation where a department doesn’t take PIT seriously, there are inadequate guidelines, and someone is injured or killed by a poorly trained officer. A claim could also be based on the fact the situation didn’t justify the use of such a potentially deadly technique, especially if passengers or bystanders could be injured.

Speak To a Louisville Car Accident Attorney Near You

Satterley & Kelley, PLLC lawyers are your boots on the ground if you or a family member are injured or killed in a Kentucky police chase. Call Satterley & Kelley PLLC to speak with a skilled personal injury attorney at our Louisville office toll-free at 855-385-9532 or complete our online contact form today.

A successful plaintiff can use product liability law to receive compensation for injuries caused by a defective product. This could be a medication that results in a severe side effect that the person wasn’t warned about or a defective tool that breaks when used as intended causes an injury. A federal judge in Kansas recently ruled that the rideshare app may be defective because it could’ve resulted in a woman’s rape.

What is Product Liability Law?

Usually, legal action by an injured party involves negligence claims. A plaintiff would argue that the defendant owed them reasonable care because of the relationship between the parties. The defendant violated that duty by doing something poorly or not doing anything, causing the person harm. The plaintiff also must show that the defendant should compensate them under Kentucky law.

If you’re injured by a product, in addition to a negligence claim, if you have the evidence, you can also argue that the defendant should compensate you for your harm due to the state’s product liability laws.

You would need to show that the defendant (who could be anyone making, distributing, or selling the product) put a product that’s unsafe for its intended purpose into the marketplace even when it’s used as instructed. It could have a design or manufacturing defect, or the instructions or warnings are legally insufficient.

To fall under product liability law, what’s at issue must be a product, like a pipe wrench. You use it, it breaks, and you’re injured. If you hire a plumber to fix a leak, that’s a service. If the leak continues, you slip on a wet floor and are injured, which may be a negligence claim against the plumber.

A key issue the judge in this case decided was that the Lyft app (used to arrange transportation) was not strictly a service providing drivers to users. It had enough elements of a product to be covered by Kansas product liability law.

Lyft Customer Raped After Being Driven Home

Because of the nature of the case, the plaintiff is anonymous. She used the Lyft app for a ride to a liquor store and back home because she was too intoxicated to drive herself safely. The driver and a companion were in the car. They went to the liquor store and returned to the plaintiff’s home, where she passed out. The companion raped her while the driver stole some of her personal belongings.

Lyft would not usually be responsible for the criminal acts of its drivers, but the facts of the case show that the Lyft app if considered a product, could be dangerous if used as intended. According to the court’s decision:

• Lyft received in 2022 a driver application from someone identified as “Terri Parham”
• The picture on the driver’s license included as part of the application was from someone named Terri Parham, but the driver photo for the application was co-defendant Michalia Williams
• The photos didn’t match, but Lyft approved the application anyway
• Williams had a prior criminal record at the time and didn’t have a valid driver’s license.
• The vehicle, insurance, and contact information used for the application were in the name of another person, co-defendant Joshua Williams, also a convicted felon
• Michalia Williams drove the car and the plaintiff matched her with the photo Lyft provided. Joshua Williams was in the car with her
• Michalia Williams later pled guilty to felony theft, and Joshua Williams pled guilty to felony aggravated battery

The plaintiff made several claims against Lyft, which asked the court to dismiss them. The company was partially successful, but the product liability case remains.

Is the Lyft App a Service or a Product?

Judge John Broomes stated the Lyft app had elements of a service and a product but was enough of a product to fall within the Kansas product liability statute:

“…the Lyft app is a software or algorithmic product with sufficient similarities to a tangible product to subject it to product liability law. That conclusion reflects the realities of Lyft’s business model as alleged in the complaint: Lyft offers a ride-sharing service, but it provides its own proprietary product – the Lyft application – that its drivers and passengers are required to use in order to provide or receive the service that Lyft is selling…this does not mean that every injury alleged by the Plaintiff in this Count is automatically traceable to Lyft via the app under a theory of product liability. Rather, Plaintiff must show how an alleged flaw in the app software led to a specific injury…A key determination is causation; would the alternative app design have prevented the assault from occurring…there appear to be things that Plaintiff has reasonably pled that could potentially meet this causation requirement, such as screening measures to confirm a driver’s identity …or the failure of the app to identify that the biometric information of the two photos on the Lyft driver application were not the same…”

Judge Broomes pointed to other cases where judges reached similar conclusions.

What Does This Mean for Me?

Many apps can bring you into contact with others. You can get a ride somewhere, have food delivered, hire someone to assemble furniture or fix your plumbing. If the person you thought would help you hurts you, depending on the facts, this line of cases may give you a way to seek compensation for your injuries.

Schedule A Free Consultation — Contact Us Today

You may have a valid compensation claim if you or a loved one is injured or suffers extensive property damage due to a defective product. To discuss your situation with an experienced product liability attorney, schedule a free initial consultation. Call 855-385-9532 or contact us online to reach our office in Louisville.