IN MOST LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES, CLAIMS AND LAWSUITS BROUGHT FOR VEHICULAR NEGLIGENCE EXCEED THOSE WHICH ALLEGE OTHER KINDS OF MISCONDUCT. ALTHOUGH A POLICE CAR ON ORDINARY PATROL OR ENROUTE TO A ROUTINE CALL IS NOT AN EMERGENCY VEHICLE AND IS NOT LIABILITY-EXEMPT, THE MOTOR VEHICLE CODE DOES EXTEND SPECIAL LIABILITY PRIVILEGES TO OFFICERS RESPONDING TO AN EMERGENCY. ORDINANCES AND STATUTES OFTEN DETERMINE THE OUTCOME OF A LAWSUIT FOR VEHICULAR NEGLIGENCE. OFFICERS MAY BE PRIVILEGED TO EXCEED THE SPEED LIMIT WHEN CHASING VEHICLES IN SOME STATES, BUT LIABLE FOR ANY ACCIDENTS CAUSED BY EXCESS SPEED IN OTHERS DEPENDING ON EXTENUATING CIRCUMSTANCES. EXAMPLES OF NEGLIGENT CONDUCT INCLUDE (1) NOT USING SIRENS AND LIGHTS IN PURSUIT SITUATIONS, (2) NOT EQUIPPING AN UNMARKED VEHICLE WITH SUCH EQUIPMENT (PERSONS HAVE RECOVERED DAMAGES FROM COLLISIONS CAUSED WHEN THE SUSPECTS ATTEMPT TO OUTRUN UNMARKED VEHICLES PURSUING THEM), AND (3) PLACEMENT OF ROADBLOCKS OR PARKING AT THE BOTTOM OF A HILL OR AROUND A CURVE. CHIEFS OF LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES SHOULD DEFINE THE VARIOUS TYPES OF EMERGENCY CALLS AND SPECIFY THE KINDS OF RESPONSE WHICH ARE PERMITTED. A DISCUSSION GUIDE ACCOMPANIES THE FILM. (MHP)