 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Thomas v. City of Richmond2/16/1994
STEIN, J.:
Pele Thomas was seriously injured when he was struck by a police vehicle driven by Officer Jim Jenkins. The superior court found that Government Code section 845.8 and Vehicle Code section 17004 immunized the City of Richmond from any liability for those injuries, and granted summary judgment in favor of both the City of Richmond and Jenkins on Thomas's complaint against them for damages. Thomas appeals. We conclude that Jenkins is immune from liability, but the City of Richmond is not. We therefore will reverse the judgment as to the City of Richmond.
FACTS
On the evening of September 4, 1990, Thomas, then 18-years old, stood with a friend, JoELL Carter, on the corner of Sixth Street and Pennsylvania Avenue in Richmond. City of
Richmond police officers, responding to a report of two men with shotguns or rifles at that location, drove up to Thomas and his friend Carter. Thomas and Carter bolted, notwithstanding that an officer yelled at them to "Halt, stop." Other police officers responded to the first officer's report that he was chasing subjects running northbound on Sixth Street. Thomas ran by one police car, and turned left onto Pennsylvania Street, again ignoring an officer's orders to stop. Officer Jenkins, who was driving on Pennsylvania Avenue, saw Thomas make the turn just as he had backed and turned his vehicle towards Sixth Street. Thomas was running in a traffic lane and did not appear to be carrying either a rifle or a shotgun. Officer Jenkins accelerated towards Thomas and, a few moments later, his vehicle struck Thomas, rendering him a quadriplegic.
Discussion
As will be discussed, infra, Officer Jenkins is immune from suit, and Thomas does not contend otherwise. It is Thomas's position that the City of Richmond is liable for his injuries because they either were the result of police negligence or tortious intentional acts. The superior court, believing itself to be bound by the decision in Hooper v. City of Chula Vista (1989) 212 Cal. App. 3d 442, 260 Cal. Rptr. 495, ruled otherwise. After careful consideration, we believe that Hooper v. City of Chula Vista reached the correct result on the particular facts of that case, but we decline to follow it insofar as it holds that a public entity is immune from liability for the negligent or intentional torts of its police officers committed while attempting to apprehend a suspected criminal. In our opinion, the issue is not immunity, but whether the officers acted reasonably under the circumstances; if so, no liability can attach. Here, as in most cases, the issue of whether the officers acted reasonably under the circumstances presents issues of fact. Summary judgment, therefore, should not have been granted.
The Court Erred in Finding that the City of Richmond is Immune from Thomas's Suit
There is no general immunity for injuries resulting from police action. Indeed, a facial reading of the relevant statutes supports the opposite Conclusion. Government Code section 815.2, subdivision (a) provides that a public entity is liable "for injury proximately caused by an act or omission of any employee of the public entity within the scope of his employment if the act or omission would, apart from this section, have given rise to a cause of action against that employee or his personal representative." Subdivision (a), therefore, establishes a general rule of liability. That rule is partially circumscribed by subdivision (b), providing that except as otherwise provided by statute, a governmental entity, such as the City of Richmond, "is not liable for an injury re
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 California Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|