Go to the mobile version of this Web site.

Login | Contact Us | Site Map | Paid archives | Electronic edition | Subscription Questions | Extras

City on the hook

Will latest legal settlement set a costly precedent?

Rocky Mountain News

Published November 18, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.

Text size  

More Editorials

More stories »

Are Denver's legal settlements getting out of hand? Councilwoman Jeanne Faatz has raised the question because of the city's $3 million settlement in a lawsuit by the family of Emily Rice, who died in a jail cell nearly three years ago from internal injuries despite her impassioned pleas for help.

Rice had been drinking the day before her death and turned her vehicle in front of an oncoming car. Injured, she was taken to Denver Health Medical Center, then transferred to the jail several hours later. That was the first mistake; the second was her appallingly callous treatment at the lockup.

A legal settlement of some magnitude was clearly in the cards. But $3 million is one of the biggest in city history - and it follows a $4 million settlement by the Rice family with Denver Health over the same incident.

Ironically, that earlier settlement may have contributed to the city's predicament, as it set a precedent. If the case had gone to trial, would jurors have found out about it? And if they had, what effect would it have had on their decision?

Legal fees alone as the case went forward would have been monumental.

Still, we share Faatz's worry over the size of the settlement. "I am concerned that we seem to be tolerating more high ticket settlements," she told us. "And to me, it encourages people to go to the deep pockets."

For that matter, Denver Health's culpability in Rice's death appears to have been much greater than the city's yet the hospital paid out only a third more. And the grand total from public entities - $7 million - is a huge figure compared to what other wronged families have obtained, including those whose loved ones have been killed by police in mistaken shootings.

Paying the $3 million is a close call, in other words, although on balance we think the city did the right thing. Other than the fact that Rice's own behavior led to her injuries, the details of the 24-year-old woman's death were almost tailor-made to provoke the deepest sympathy and understandable outrage from potential jurors. The city was at considerable risk if it had gone to trial.

If it's any consolation to taxpayers, the city and plaintiffs did reach agreement on more than money. Together they drew up Emily's Protocols, which the city promises to follow and which involve training and procedures for the sheriff's department that should go far toward averting similar incidents.

Emily Rice never should have been allowed to die alone and frightened - and although the $7 million in settlements won't save another life, Emily's Protocols just might.

Comments

  • November 18, 2008

    9:49 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    KelcyCo writes:

    I bet it would have been less if the DA had prosecuted those involved in her death. Her death had active participants in it. People who specifically chose to not do their jobs. I still don`t understand where several of those involved are not in jail for at least something like involuntary manslaughter. Given the inadequate response from the city I`m surprised the award was not more. Here in this country we use money to motivate change in behavior by bureaucracies. The cost is way to low to the city to affect change.

  • November 18, 2008

    6:23 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Freedom1 writes:

    The issue is not "why is the City spending so much money?" but "why is the City engaging in the kind of conduct which mandates this sort of settlement?" Believe me, $3mill is a bargain if a jury would have given the family of Emily Rice $15mill after trial which they may well have done. In excessive force cases, when brutal police act brutally, the remedy is not to whine about the settlement but to insist that our government rid itself of brutal cops. In the Rice case, no one would trade their beautiful child for any amount of money. Insist that your government act responsibly and taxpayers won't have to pay like this in the future.