 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Hallman v. California State University11/22/2002
other provision. (See Alejo v. City of Alhambra (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 1180, 1184-1185.) Merely to assert the existence of a "mandatory duty" is not sufficient. An independent statutory source of duty must be pled with particularity. (Searcy v. Hemet Unified School Dist., supra, 177 Cal.App.3d at p. 802.)
Where courts have sustained causes of action against public entities based on the allegation of a failure to investigate, the referenced statute must not only establish the duty, it must also be apparent that the duty exists specifically to benefit the person who is harmed by the failure to investigate. (ยง 815.6; Compare Shelton v. City of Westminster (1982) 138 Cal.App.3d 610 [no liability to parents of murder victim where police failed fully to perform statutory missing person investigation because parents were not class of persons statute is intended to protect]; with Alejo v. City of Alhambra, supra, 75 Cal.App.4th 1180 [complaint alleging police failure to carry out investigation of possible child abuse as required by statute held to state a sufficient cause of action].)
We cannot find, nor do Appellants make any reference to, any statute or enactment that establishes a duty of police to investigate or report altercations for the benefit of potential future claimants. Instead, Appellants cite Mann v. State of California (1977) 70 Cal.App.3d 773 (Mann) in support of the proposition that a non-statutory cause of action may be sustained against police where there is a failure fully to investigate.
Their reliance on Mann is misplaced. In Mann, a highway patrol officer was potentially found liable when he initially used his patrol car to direct traffic around a stalled vehicle on a freeway but later left the scene without placing flares or warning others that he was leaving. The injuries that formed the underlying damage claim in Mann were incurred after the officer failed to act according to departmental guidelines by leaving the scene without securing the protection of the stranded people who were subsequently injured by freeway traffic. (Id. at pp. 776-777.) Although the acts of omission in Mann are labeled investigatory, they did not have to do with the officer's presumed duty to the police agency to write a report; they had to do with his duty to the persons caught in that perilous situation to take steps to protect them from foreseeable subsequent injury once he had come to their aid. (See generally, Mann, supra, 70 Cal.App.3d 773.)
The injuries Appellants suffered were incurred before security officers arrived. Contrary to Appellants' contention, nothing in Mann specifies or implies a duty of responding security personnel thoroughly to investigate a situation or to complete a report of an incident for the benefit of potential future claimants. Appellants do not allege University security personnel promised Appellants they would complete a thorough investigation. Further, Appellants' contention that such a promise became implicit when the University security personnel responded to their call for help is not supported by any authority. We therefore conclude University had no special duty to Appellants to control the actions of third parties, nor did University's security personnel incur a special duty to Appellants thoroughly to investigate the incident for their benefit as potential claimants simply because they responded to Appellants' call for help.
Because we have concluded Appellants have not alleged facts sufficient to establish University had a duty to them either on common law or statutory grounds, we need not dwell long on the issue of immunity. (Rodriguez v. Inglewood Unified School District, supra, 186 Cal.App.3d at p. 723.) We consider the
Page 1 2 3 4 5 California Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|