Dist.Ct. erred in dismissing on pleadings plaintiff's section 1983 action, alleging that officer violated plaintiff's substantive due process rights when he drove through residential streets at speeds up to 98 m.p.h. to reach routine traffic stop and crashed into decedent's car, and where defendant-City failed to adequately train its police officers to avoid such encounters. Plaintiff seeking relief under section 1983 for violation of her substantive due process rights must plead sufficient facts to establish that officer acted with criminal recklessness. While Dist. Ct. found that plaintiff had failed to allege sufficient facts to permit inference that defendant-officer knew of danger he created and consciously disregarded it, Ct. of Appeals held that complaint adequately alleged viable substantive due process claim, where: (1) officer was never requested by other officers to assist them in apprehension of individual in otherwise routine traffic stop; (2) with no justification, officer chose to race through residential streets at speeds up to 98 m.p.h. and drove through red light to hit decedent's car, which was traveling in accordance with traffic lights; and (3) jury could find that officer displayed criminal recklessness to known risk. Also, plaintiff adequately alleged viable cause of action against defendant-City based on failure-to-train theory, where: (1) City was aware that officer had previously operated his vehicle at high rate of speed over 50 m.p.h. on three occasions in spite of telling all of its officers not to drive over 50 m.p.h.; and (2) defendant never reprimanded anyone for failing to abide by said directive or took steps to prevent this behavior.
