Dayton ‘direct eye contact’ police officer sued for rear-ending driver

Credit: DaytonDailyNews

A Spring Valley man is suing a Dayton police officer who rammed into the back of his vehicle in May 2015.

Benjamin Jones brought a personal injury suit against Dayton police officer Randy Betsinger and the city of Dayton in Montgomery County Common Pleas Court.

Betsinger, the officer who was found to have acted appropriately in the “direct eye contact” traffic stop that made headlines in August 2015, was disciplined for the traffic crash, according to police records.

RELATED:Officer cleared in direct eye contact case

Dash-cam video shows Betsinger’s cruiser slam into the back of Jones’ U.S. Postal van on May 1, 2015 and then the officer shouts out an expletive. It was Betsinger’s second on-duty crash in about a week. He was found at fault in both and given an oral reprimand.

Th video shows Betsinger driving south on Salem Avenue and not stop when Jones’ vehicle was stopped at a traffic light. The impact knocked Jones’ vehicle into the car in front of it.

The lawsuit alleges Betsinger failed to maintain an assured clear distance behind Jones' car and rear-ending it. Dayton police issued an oral reprimand against Betsinger, according to an internal investigation report.

“Betsinger’s actions were done with actual malice in a willful, wanton, and reckless manner evidencing a conscious disregard for the rights and safety of other persons and having a great possibility of causing substantial harm,” the suit said, adding that the city of Dayton “negligently entrusted the vehicle” to Betsinger, “an inexperienced and incompetent driver.”

The city of Dayton declined to comment on pending litigation. Jones’ attorney didn’t immediately respond to a message seeking comment.

The lawsuit alleges Jones suffered severe and permanent injuries, pain and suffering, medical expenses of $6,698 and more costs expected plus loss of wages and future earnings. Jones seeks $25,000 and punitive damages of $50,000 plus interest and court costs.

The suit also names the U.S. Dept. of Labor as a defendant because it “may have a vested interest in the within action as a result of its claim of subrogation, if one so exists.”

About the Author