JCF FREED IN FATAL RUN - Court tosses father’s negligence case after son collapsed, died during recruitment test

A father has lost his negligence claim against the State over the death of his son, who collapsed during a physical assessment for recruitment to the Jamaica Constabulary Force (JCF) five years ago.

Supreme Court Justice Sonya Wint-Blair dismissed the claim, finding that the evidence did not prove that the JCF was negligent or that its recruitment procedures caused the aspiring recruit’s death.

Jerome Kerr collapsed after running about 350 to 400 metres of an 800-metre endurance test at the Police Training Academy in St Catherine on May 11, 2021. He was later hospitalised, but died.

His father, Errol Kerr, acting as administrator of his son’s estate, had sued the attorney general and the JCF in 2023, arguing that the force should have medically cleared his son before allowing him to participate in the strenuous exercise.

Kerr claimed that his son had disclosed his medical condition, which he believed was sickle cell trait, to the JCF before the physical assessment. He also believed that Jerome had undergone, or was scheduled to undergo, a blood test or medical assessment before participating in the exercise.

Kerr said he relied partly on official JCF information which, according to his evidence, listed the medical assessment before the physical assessment. This evidence was, however, not accepted by court as coming officially from the JCF.

However, Wint-Blair, in her judgment handed down on September 21, found that while the JCF owed the recruit a duty of care, the father had failed to prove that the force breached that duty.

“The police do not enjoy general immunity from the ordinary law of negligence,” the judge said, noting that the key issues were the scope of the duty, whether it was breached, and whether any breach caused the loss.

Attorney Tamiko Smith, representing Kerr’s estate, argued that the JCF organised and controlled the physical assessment and therefore had a responsibility to take reasonable precautions to protect applicants.

She submitted that serious physical harm from strenuous exercise by a medically uncleared applicant was reasonably foreseeable.

Smith further argued that the JCF should have obtained medical information before allowing the recruit to participate and that, had it done so, he would not have undertaken the run.

Attorney for the State, Jenoure Simpson, accepted that the JCF owed a duty of care but argued that this did not extend to the pre-screening being claimed by the estate.

He submitted that the JCF’s responsibility was to ensure competent medical personnel were available to respond to emergencies during the assessment.

Simpson also pointed to the absence of documentary evidence showing that the recruit had undergone a blood test or disclosed his medical condition to the JCF before the run.

Deputy Superintendent Dian Bartley, the JCF’s chief recruiting officer, testified that the recruitment process at the time required applicants to complete the physical assessment before the medical examination and blood donation.

The court found no evidence that the recruit had disclosed sickle cell trait or sickle cell disease to the JCF before the run.

“I further find that the JCF did not know before the run that [he] had any illness, including sickle cell trait or sickle cell disease,” the judge said.

The court also rejected the argument that the recruit’s underlying medical condition, coupled with his death, was enough to establish negligence.

“Negligence cannot be established by beginning with later knowledge and working backwards,” the judgment stated.

The judge said the estate had to prove that reasonable care required the JCF to conduct a blood test, complete blood count or formal medical examination before allowing the recruit to participate.

It also had to prove that such testing would probably have detected his condition, that the results would have reached the recruiters in time, and that he would probably have been prevented from taking part in the run.

The court found that those links had not been established.

The judge acknowledged that some physical distress was foreseeable during an endurance test and noted that medical personnel were present to respond to emergencies.

However, the court found that the evidence did not show that an apparently fit and asymptomatic applicant, whose condition was unknown to the JCF, presented a foreseeable risk requiring medical clearance before the run.

The judge also considered the “thin skull” rule, which can make a defendant liable for the full consequences of an injury suffered by a person with an underlying vulnerability.

However, she said the principle could not assist the estate because breach of duty and factual causation had not first been established.

The judge acknowledged the profound impact of Jerome’s death, but said the court was required to determine liability according to the evidence and applicable legal principles.

“Jerome’s illness was not created by the police,” the judgment stated. “That fact alone would not protect the JCF from liability if its own activity exposed him to a foreseeable risk of physical injury.”

At the same time, the court said it would be equally wrong to conclude that liability automatically followed simply because the JCF organised the run and Jerome suffered a medical crisis while participating.

“The evidence must establish that reasonable care required the JCF to obtain and consider a medical result before subjecting Jerome to the physical demands of the run,” the judge said.

The court ultimately found that the claimant had failed to prove breach and causation on a balance of probabilities.

The JCF was removed as a party and the claim was dismissed, with costs awarded to the attorney general.

tanesha.mundle@gleanerjm.com