Saarinen v. Kerr, 84 N.Y.2d 494 [1994] involved a high speed police chase, the Court of Appeals ruled that the standard for liability was more than ordinary negligence, and required "evidence that 'the actor has intentionally done an act of an unreasonable character in disregard of a known or obvious risk that was so great as to make it highly probable that harm would follow' and has done so with conscious indifference to the outcome" (Saarinen v. Kerr at 501.) The evidence in the Saarinen case warranted the granting of summary judgment in favor of the municipal defendant. The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division and granted the motion on behalf of the police officer for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. In that case, a police officer was in pursuit of a suspected lawbreaker (drunk driver) when that driver collided with the plaintiff's car. The Court of Appeals, in a well reasoned opinion by Justice Titone, examined the decisions of the various judicial departments and noted that "the courts of this State have had some difficulty articulating the precise test for determining a driver's liability for injuries resulting from the operation of an emergency vehicle . . . Faced squarely with this question of statutory interpretation . . . we hold that a police officer's conduct . . . may not form the basis of civil liability . . . unless the officer acted in reckless disregard for the safety of others" (id. at 500-501).