San Francisco Jury determines California Highway Patrol 9-1-1 Dispatch System Grossly Negligent
San Francisco, July 16, 2007 – A San Francisco jury returned a verdict on Wednesday, July 11, 2007 finding that the California Highway Patrol’s 9-1-1 dispatch system was grossly negligent in the handling of a January 19, 2003 roadside emergency. The case was a wrongful death action filed against the California Highway Patrol by Mary Housley, the widow of Richard Housley, and Jennifer Housley, their daughter, for the California Highway Patrol 9-1-1 dispatchers’ extreme departures from state-wide established dispatching procedures while responding to emergency calls. “I felt it was important that the public know about this weak link in the chain of emergency care,” said Mary Housley following the verdict. “The CHP told us for years that they did nothing wrong. I wanted the CHP to hear from the community about what the public feels is acceptable practice for its governmental agencies.”
The case arose following a January 19, 2003 accident on the San Francisco Bay Bridge. Richard Housley was injured in the accident. Mary Housley used her cell phone to call 9-1-1. In the Bay Area, all calls to 9-1-1 are routed to the CHP’s Golden Gate Communications Center. The Communications Center also got other calls from motorists advising the CHP of the incident. The two dispatchers who initially responded failed to notify emergency personnel and falsified entries in their computer logs. The dispatchers’ actions were extreme departures from established state-wide dispatching procedures that require that emergency personnel be immediately dispatched and information not be falsified.
As a result of the entries, an ambulance was not dispatched until another dispatcher, at the request of CHP officers at the scene concerned about the significant delay, called to follow up with the paramedics to inquire about the delay. By the time paramedics arrived, Mr. Housley was dead. Mrs. Housley, a nurse practitioner, performed rescue breathing for her husband throughout the delay and watched him die.
The jury determined that the CHP’s actions were grossly negligent but that their actions did not cause Richard Housley’s death. “We appreciate the jury’s willingness to tell the CHP that their actions were not acceptable. We took this case for that reason alone,” said Miles Cooper, an attorney with The Veen Firm, P.C., one of two firms representing the Housleys.
“On behalf of the Housleys, we are disappointed that the jury did not appreciate the connection between the CHP’s delay and Richard Housley’s death.” said John Drath, an attorney with Drath, Clifford, Murphy, & Hagen, LLP, the other firm representing the Housley family. “We hope that the CHP and the other dispatching entities whose failures have been in the news recently listen to this jury’s decision and start providing the service that the community deserves.”
The Veen Firm focuses on recovering damages for the catastrophically injured and has since 1975. The firm specializes in catastrophic injury, construction accident, legal malpractice, medical malpractice, negligence, premises liability, product liability, toxic exposure and wrongful death cases. On the Net: www.veenfirm.com.
In This Section:
Media Contact
Traci Stuart
Blattel Communications
(415) 397-4811