 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Hallman v. California State University11/22/2002
issue only to note that section 845 provides that public entities and public employees are not liable for damages arising from the failure to provide police services. This provision has been held to provide absolute immunity both to ministerial and discretionary acts. (Gates v. Superior Court (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 481, 507.) The purpose of the immunity is to shield public entities "from being second-guessed [in policy making and budgeting decisions] by judges and juries in personal injury lawsuits." (Mann, supra, 70 Cal.App.3d at p. 778.)
The time and effort a department allocates to factual investigation and reporting of incidents falls within the general realm of budgetary and policy decisions. Thus, the investigating and reporting function would appear to lie within the realm of police activities that is immune from claims of monetary damages for alleged failure to provide. For the reasons already discussed, Mann, supra, 70 Cal.App.3d 773, does not provide otherwise. We conclude that, even if Appellants had otherwise been able to allege facts necessary to state a valid claim against University, the latter would be immune from the claim under the provisions of section 845.
1. Dismissal of Action
" here demurrer is sustained without leave to amend, reviewing courts determine whether the trial court abused its discretion in doing so. [Citations.] On review of the trial court's refusal to grant leave to amend, we will only reverse for abuse of discretion if we determine there is a reasonable possibility the pleading can be cured by amendment. Otherwise, the trial court's decision will be affirmed for lack of abuse. [Citations.]" (Hernandez v. City of Pomona (1996) 49 Cal.App.4th 1492, 1497-1498.)
The central problem Appellants cannot surmount in their effort to maintain a claim against University is the complete lack of any statutory basis for the claim. There simply appears to be no statute that confers a duty to investigate altercations for the benefit of potential future claimants or litigants. Appellants' argument that there is a common law basis for such a claim is without merit as previously discussed. If a statutory basis for Appellants' claim exists, they have had abundant opportunity to find it. We conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in sustaining University's demurrer without leave to amend.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed. Costs on appeal are awarded to University.
WE CONCUR:
ARDAIZ, P.J.
VARTABEDIAN, J.
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.
|
|