In what cases have off duty "off duty" police officers been found liable for negligence by the courts for negligent discharge?

At best, one of the cases can be read to assume that such officers are acting within the scope of employment. In Moore v. City of Detroit (1983) 128 Mich.App. 491, 340 N.W.2d 640, the appellate court held that although the plaintiff, an innocent bystander who was shot by an "off duty" police officer during the officer's confrontation with an armed robber, had established a prima facie case that the city's policy might have resulted in his injuries, the city could not be held liable for its employee's negligence because of government immunity, nor could it be held liable under a federal civil rights statute.

The other two cases involved suits which alleged that the city itself had been negligent,

Page 320

In Peer v. City of Newark (1961) 71 N.J.Super. 12, 176 A.2d 249 the plaintiff was seriously injured by a bullet from a negligently discharged gun worn by an "off duty" police officer. City regulations required the officer to carry his gun at all times except when on vacation, suspended, sick or injured. The plaintiff instituted an action against the city on the ground of active wrongdoing by city and won. On appeal, the judgment was affirmed, the appellate court finding that there was substantial evidence that the city had failed to provide an adequate training program in the safe use of the weapon.