1. Whether a court should apply the intent-to-harm standard of liability to all police high-speed driving, as have the Eighth and Ninth Circuits, or instead employ an analysis which examines the facts of individual cases to decide whether there was an opportunity to deliberate and apply the standard of deliberate indifference or another standard other than intent-to-harm, as have the Third, Fourth, Seventh, and Tenth Circuits.

2. Whether a court reviewing high-speed driving by a police officer should use an objective test to determine whether an emergency existed, as have the Third, Fourth, and Seventh Circuits, or rely merely on the asserted claim of an officer that he subjectively believed there to be an emergency, as has the Eighth Circuit.

Whether a court should apply the intent-to-harm standard of liability to all police high-speed driving