Wourms v. Fields, 742 F.3d 756

Sixteen-year-old Dane Wourms was killed when a high-speed pursuit by an unmarked police car began after 1 a.m. in April 2007, causing Wourms’ car to crash.
The estate's personal representative brought a §1983 claim against the pursuing officer; the employer was joined only as a potential indemnitor and later ignored.
The district court granted summary judgment for the officer, holding the evidence insufficient to show a collision between the two cars.
Plaintiff premised the claim on an unconstitutional seizure under the Fourth Amendment, arguing the officer rammed Wourms’ car during the pursuit.
The court reformed the caption, recognizing the proper plaintiff as the executor/personal representative rather than the estate itself or beneficiaries.
The court affirmed the district court’s ruling due to lack of evidence of a collision and absence of Fourth Amendment violation evidence tying the officer’s conduct to a seizure or to excessive force.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether summary judgment was proper on the Fourth Amendment collision theory	Wourms’ estate contends the police car struck Wourms’ car, creating a seizure.	The officer denies contact, and pretrial discovery does not support a collision.	Yes; no material evidence shows a collision.
Whether the PIT maneuver or ramming theory supports a Fourth Amendment claim	The officer used excessive force to stop Wourms’ car.	Even if force was used, a collision could be unnecessary for a seizure; excessive force claim not proven.	No genuine dispute on collision; summary judgment affirmed.
Whether the evidence supports a Fourth Amendment excessive-force claim based on causation in the pursuit	The pursuit caused the crash via improper force.	Wourms drove recklessly; stopping force not shown to be unreasonable under the circumstances.	Not enough to prove Fourth Amendment seizure or excessive-force claim.

Brower v. County of Inyo, 489 U.S. 593 (U.S. 1989) (establishes seizure theories in pursuit cases)
Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (U.S. 1989) (excessive-force framework under Fourth Amendment)
Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (U.S. 2007) (reaffirming that not all police pursuits violate the Fourth Amendment)
Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1985) (premise that deadly force restrictions apply to apprehension/escape situations)
Cyrus v. Town of Mukwonago, 624 F.3d 856 (7th Cir. 2010) (analysis of reasonableness of force in pursuit contexts)
Anderson v. Branen, 17 F.3d 552 (2d Cir. 1994) (excessive-force considerations in close-cousin claims)
Walker v. Davis, 649 F.3d 502 (6th Cir. 2011) (course-of-action in high-speed pursuits not per se unconstitutional)
Sharp v. Fisher, 532 F.3d 1180 (11th Cir. 2008) (PIT maneuver discussed in context of admissibility and reasonableness)
Helseth v. Burch, 258 F.3d 867 (8th Cir. 2001) (PIT maneuver recognition in appellate decisions)
Russell v. Acme-Evans Co., 51 F.3d 64 (7th Cir. 1995) (summary-judgment standard guidance)