PHOENIX — The parents of a girl who Department of Public Safety officers incorrectly said was dead have no right to sue the agency for negligence, the state’s high court ruled Friday.
In a divided opinion, the majority concluded police officers have no specific duty to exercise care when notifying next of kin. And since there is no such duty, misinformed family members have no right to sue.
Friday’s ruling requires the trial judge to dismiss the lawsuit filed by Maria and Jose Guerra, who were told the young woman who died in a 2010 traffic accident on Interstate 10 west of Phoenix was their daughter, April, who was 19 at the time. Meanwhile, the parents of Marlena Cantu sat in a hospital with a comatose victim of the same accident believing she was their daughter.
It turned out DPS had misidentified who was who. It was only after the medical examiner raised questions a week later that both families learned the truth.
Beyond this case, the ruling forecloses similar lawsuits the next time a police officer mistakenly tells someone a family member is dead.
The two girls were part of a group returning from a trip to Disneyland when a rear tire failed, causing the vehicle to roll. Two of the passengers were ejected, with one girl pronounced dead at the scene; a male passenger died later at the hospital.
DPS officers found a purse near the unidentified girl’s body containing Arizona driver’s licenses of both April and Marlena, age 21, who were described as close friends who shared similar physical attributes. After the accident, both of the girls had badly swollen and bruised faces.
Based on information from the hospital’s charge nurse of who they believed was there, officers concluded the dead girl had to be April and notified her family.
But the medical examiner requested dental records from April’s parents to make a positive identification, and when they didn’t match, additional medical records were requested, which led to accurately identifying who was who.
Justice John Pelander, writing for the majority, said making officers legally obligated to provide accurate information — and making them liable if they are wrong — is bad public policy.
“Imposing such a duty, at a minimum, would cause officers to delay in making next-of-kin notifications,” he wrote. “At worst, it may deter officers from sharing whatever information they have with anxious family members for fear of litigation and possible liability.”
Pelander said that could create an even worse situation than what occurred here.
“Medical research confirms that uncertainty or lack of information about a loved one’s status as dead or alive is traumatizing for most people,” he wrote. “Inasmuch as prompt, open and frank communication with distraught family members of potential crime or accident victims is both critical and considerate, imposing a duty in this context would contravene rather than advance public policy.”
Pelander also said that, despite the notification, family members were told they would still need to identify the body. They also later furnished additional identifying information.
Friday’s ruling was not unanimous, with Chief Justice Scott Bales writing a dissent joined by Justice Rebecca White Berch.
“The result does not promote desirable conduct by law enforcement officers,” Bales wrote. He said that when law enforcement officers make next-of-kin notifications, they have a duty to be as accurate as possible.
DPS spokesman Bart Graves said his agency had no comment.
