Officers covered in take-home patrol cars?
In a case that could impact many police departments in Utah that have programs allowing officers to take their patrol vehicles home, the Utah Supreme Court heard arguments in the case of a Salt Lake police officer who was seriously injured in an auto accident while driving her patrol car home to Tooele from a training meeting while on her day off. The accident took place outside of the city limits on U-36 near Adobe Rock.
The Utah Supreme Court had previously ruled that officer Michelle Ross was not on duty when a couple sued Salt Lake City over the accident; therefore, Salt Lake City was not liable.
After the court's 2003 ruling, Ross applied for Workers' Compensation insurance to help pay her own medical bills incurred from the accident. The Utah Labor Commission issued an order in 2004 that found Ross' accident arose in the course of her employment and therefore qualified for Workers' Compensation assistance. The city appealed, but the commission upheld their decision.
During oral arguments Tuesday, justices questioned that had Ross' accident taken place in Salt Lake City's boundaries, would she have been covered?
Thomas explained that part of the purpose of the program was to have a "police presence" on the streets and have officers able to respond to emergencies. Ross, Thomas argued, was outside the city limits, her 14-month-old child was with her and her radio reception to dispatch was "spotty." Taken all together, Thomas said Ross' benefit to the city diminished.
Justice Michael Wilkins said it seemed Salt Lake City was trying to make a distinction in the law that the law doesn't address. Currently the law takes into consideration where you are coming from and where you are going, but not the exact location of an accident.
Ross' attorney, Gary Atkin, said it was clear that Ross was injured in the course of her work. While Utah law considers workers to be on their own time "going and coming" to and from work, Atkin said Ross complied with the Take Car Home Program by having her radio on. As for her child, Ross had previously stated that she would have been able to drop off her child with friends in the area to respond to a call.
Atkin said although Ross had the day off, she traveled to Salt Lake City to meet her work obligation. "She was doing what she was required to do. She was where she was required to be," Atkin said.
The high court is expected to issue a ruling in writing in the coming months.
E-mail: gfattah@desnews.com
You can be the first to comment on this story.