 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Calatayud v. State8/6/1998
ed, section 1714, subdivision (a) states that " very one is responsible, not only for the result of his willful acts, but also for an injury occasioned to another by his want of ordinary care and skill . . . .' " (Italics added.) No one doubts that the universal proclamation of responsibility in section 1714, subdivision (a) is subject to the various statutory immunities from liability. Neither in section 1714 nor in section 1714.9(a) is responsibility automatically equated with legal liability.
In other words, "any person," including a police officer, has a duty not to harm a police officer under the circumstances enumerated in section 1714.9(a), but such persons will not invariably be held liable if the specific facts of the injury allow the tortfeasor to invoke a governmental immunity. This interpretation is consistent with the evident purpose of section 1714.9(a), which was to limit the application of the firefighter's rule, and there is no indication in the legislative history that the section was concerned in any way with abolishing statutory immunities. On the contrary, as the language in Justice Tobriner's Dissent suggests, the purpose of section 1714.9(a) is to put a peace officer or firefighter in the same position as other employees , not to grant them a privileged position. (Hubbard, supra, 28 Cal.3d at p. 491 (dis. opn. of Tobriner, J.) It would be illogical to construe the statute to grant such privilege. Therefore, consistent with our duty to harmonize statutes where possible (County of San Bernardino v. City of San Bernardino (1997) 15 Cal.4th 909, 933), section 1714.9(a) should be construed to hold a person responsible, the firefighter's rule notwithstanding, for injury to peace officers committed under certain enumerated circumstances, but also to permit the person to defend against a suit with whatever statutory immunities would be available to any other tortfeasor.
The other arguments made by the majority in support of their position are also unpersuasive. The majority state, ante, on pages 19-20: "Construing section 1714.9(a)(1) as extending to jointly engaged fellow officers would create serious anomalies in the law because section 1714.9 preserves the exclusivity of the Workers' Compensation Act. [Citation.] Thus, an injured officer would be allowed to sue only when the negligent officer was employed by another agency . . . . We can discern no rational reason the Legislature would intend liability to depend solely on whether the plaintiff and defendant wore different badges and uniforms when the risk of injury is the same. Such a consequence is itself sufficiently absurd to defeat plaintiff's construction of the statute."
This statement does not withstand analysis. It is not the firefighter's rule that prohibits a firefighter or police officer from suing his or her employer, but rather the Workers' Compensation Act, via section 1714.9, subdivision (d), that imposes that limitation. If there is an "anomaly," it is because that act creates numerous apparent anomalies, permitting an employee to sue a tortious third party but not to sue an equally tortious employer or fellow employee. These apparent anomalies are the result of the legislative balancing of various interests. The Legislature has chosen to limit the liability of employers, but not of third parties, for on-the-job injuries (Lab. Code, ยง 3852), balancing the efficiencies of the workers' compensation system with the right of employees to seek judicial redress for personal injury. Such legislative balancing is not absurd, and therefore neither is a legislative scheme which permits a police officer to sue tortious third parties, including other government agencies, but not to sue his or her employer. In other
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 California Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|