In a terse five-page opinion, an Eighth Circuit panel in Wade v. Pottawattamie Cnty. No. 23-1059 (8th Cir. May 7, 2024), reverses a decision that dismissed, on personal jurisdiction grounds, a lawsuit against an Iowa county in a personal injury case involving a deputy crossing state lines.
“The unfortunate chain of events began when a deputy from Pottawattamie County, Iowa, spotted a car going too fast. The car continued to speed up, even as the deputy attempted a traffic stop. Over the course of ten minutes, the chase went from a rural highway near Council Bluffs to a bridge over the Missouri River into Omaha. Along the way, the speeding car lost its driver’s side tires while traveling over 100 miles per hour.”
“As the chase went on, other police cars joined. They turned off their lights and sirens as they approached the border, but they did not stop. After crossing into Nebraska, the deputy continued to drive faster than the flow of traffic and changed lanes to keep the fleeing car in sight. He provided updates about the pursuit over the radio.”
“Crossing an overpass near the first exit in Nebraska were Kirstie Wade and her children. A car was barreling right toward them moving the wrong way on an entrance ramp, so Wade could not avoid a head-on collision. The deputy and other Iowa officers stayed to help Wade and her children after the crash. Meanwhile, Nebraska law enforcement dealt with the driver of the fleeing car.”
While the district court held that it lacked personal jurisdiction over the mother’s lawsuit against the county, the Eighth Circuit reverses. It holds that there was “specific jurisdiction” over claims “aris[ing] out of or relat[ing] to [a party’s] contacts with the forum.”
“Purposeful availment exists here. As the deputies approached the border, they faced a choice: end the chase or continue across the border. They chose to continue, even if they turned off their lights and sirens and slowed down as they crossed the bridge . . . . And then, once they entered Nebraska, the lead deputy tried to stay close to the fleeing car by changing lanes and driving faster than the flow of traffic. They had to ‘reasonably anticipate’ that if something went wrong, they could be ‘haled into court’ in Nebraska.”
Paul Mollica's Federal Courts Blog 