Government Tort Claim Act .


37 views
Uploaded on:
Description
Government Tort Claim Act. How the Supreme Court Sees It Girard Fisher and Daniel P. Barer Pollak, Vida & Fisher. Overview of Act. Tort liability & immunities of public entities: GC 815-815.6 (liabilities) GC 816-818.9 (general entity immunities)
Transcripts
Slide 1

Government Tort Claim Act How the Supreme Court Sees It Girard Fisher and Daniel P. Barer Pollak, Vida & Fisher

Slide 2

Overview of Act Tort obligation & insusceptibilities of open substances: GC 815-815.6 (liabilities) GC 816-818.9 (general element invulnerabilities) GC 830-835.4 (perilous condition risk, resistances and protections) GC 844-895.8 (invulnerabilities for particular capacities). Tort obligation & invulnerabilities of open representatives: GC 820 (worker risk) GC 820.2-823 (general representative resistances) GC 840-840.6 (representative hazardous condition obligation and safeguards ). Claims & activities: GC 900-962. Protection and reimbursement of open representatives: GC 825-827, 996-996.6. Other (judgments, protection, joint forces assentions, and so forth)

Slide 3

Claims – New Statutes GC 910.4, as corrected: Pre-2003: Claim frames discretionary for all open substances. 2003-2004: Claim shapes obligatory for all open elements and petitioners (AB 3000.) August 16, 2004: Claim frames just for state (SB 1102.) GC 915.2, as changed: Mailing develops due dates. Statute of restrictions? (c.f., GC 945.6: "not later than six months after . . . such notice is . . . saved via the post office.)

Slide 4

Claims - Recent Cases Moore v. Twomey (July 21, 2004) 120 Cal.App.4 th 163: Complaint considered documented when conveyed to jail powers. Does this apply to claims as well? Condition of California v. Predominant Court (Bodde ) (May 24, 2004) 32 Cal.4th 1234 : Plaintiff must argue consistence or reason.

Slide 5

Entity Liability - Direct v. Vicarious Liability Background: Lower Courts hold that CC 1714 gives a statutory premise to direct element obligation under GC 815: Zuniga v. Lodging Authority (1995) 41 Cal.App.4 th 82 (careless inability to ensure); Ma v. San Francisco (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 488 (carelessness in giving 911 administrations). A family calls 911 in light of the fact that their little girl\'s been almost shocked. The dispatcher puts them on hold. Under CC 1714, by giving 911 support of the general population, does an open substance accept an obligation of care to people in general – with the goal that it can be held straightforwardly subject for rupturing the obligation? No . The element is just vicariously at risk, if the individual dispatcher owed the offended party an obligation; ruptured that obligation; and is not safe from risk. CC 1714 does not give statutory premise to element risk. Eastburn v. Territorial Fire Protection Authority (2003) 31 Cal.4th 1175; disliking Ma ; see likewise Zelig v. Region of Los Angeles (2002) 27 Cal.4 th 1112 (talked about further beneath), objecting Zuniga .

Slide 6

Entity Liability - Special Relationships The sheriff\'s area of expertise gives security to the region courthouse. Delegates discover that a divorced person\'s ex is debilitating to murder her. The divorced person and the ex are coming to family court for a hearing. In the court campaign, the ex shoots and murders the divorced person. Did an extraordinary relationship exist between the sheriff\'s specialty and the divorced person, committing the division to secure or caution her? No . Just individual workers can go into exceptional connections that make obligations of care – not open elements or offices. Zelig v. Region of Los Angeles (2002) 27 Cal.4th 1112; Munoz v. City of Union City (2004) 16 Cal.Rptr.3d 521; c.f., Doe 1 v. City of Murrietta (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 899 .

Slide 7

Employee Liability - Duty Analysis Zelig and Eastburn move the center to representative "obligation analysis" – remembering that he or she is at risk just   "to an indistinguishable degree from a private person."  (GC 820(a).) Earlier Supreme Court choices obscured the qualification between open substance and worker duty:  Johnson v. State (1968) 69 Cal.2d 782; Thompson v. Region of Alameda (1980) 27 Cal. 3d 741. Later Supreme Court choices separated between entity  coordinate obligation (impermissible) and vicarious risk for workers (reasonable) – yet stressed the cutoff points of the representatives\' obligations: Tarasoff v. Officials (1976) 17 Cal.3d 425; Davidson v. City of Westminster (1982) 32 Cal.3d 197; Williams v. State (1983) 34 Cal.3d 18.

Slide 8

Duty Analysis [Continued] A late Supreme Court case discovering representative obligation: Lugtu v. CHP (2001) 26 Cal.4th 703. Valuable DCA cases characterizing the breaking points of representative obligation: Rodriquez v. Inglewood Unified School Dist. (1986) 186 Cal.App.3d 707; Baker v. City of Los Angeles (1986) 188 Cal.App.3d 902; City of Santee v. Region of San Diego (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 1006;   Thorn v. City of Glendale (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 1379; Munoz, supra.

Slide 9

Dangerous Conditions – The Physical Defect Requirement Background: Cases split on physical condition necessity: Bauman v. City and County of San Francisco (1940) 42 Cal.App.2d 144 ; Quelvog v. City of Long Beach (1970) 6 Cal.App.3d 584; Hayes v. State (1974) 11 Cal.3d 469; Slapin v. Los Angeles International Airport (1976) 65 Cal.App.3d 484; Ducey v. Argo Sales (1979) 25 Cal.3d 707; Peterson v. San Francisco Community College Dist. (1984) 36 Cal.3d 799. Turner v. State (1991) 232 Cal.App.3d 883; Zuniga v. Lodging Authority (1995) 41 Cal.App.4 th 82.

Slide 10

The Physical Defect Requirement [Continued] In Zelig (once more), a divorced person\'s ex shoots her in a courthouse campaign. The courthouse didn\'t have metal finders. Did the nonattendance of metal locators make a perilous state of open property? No . Risk requires a physical imperfection in the property, which brought on the damage. Negligible absence of security (e.g., metal identifiers and administrators) is not a property deformity.

Slide 11

Dangerous Conditions – Design Immunity When a parkway was assembled, it didn\'t have a middle hindrance. When offended party\'s cross-middle mischance happened, changed activity conditions had rendered the plan perilous. The gatherings questioned whether Caltrans had notice of the change sufficiently long before the mischance that it ought to have introduced obstructions – and along these lines lost outline resistance. Was loss of plan resistance a question for the jury? Yes . Despite the fact that utilization of plan insusceptibility\'s a question for the court, if loss of outline invulnerability includes debated actualities a jury determines that debate. Cornette v. Branch of Transportation (2001) 26 Cal.4th 63.

Slide 12

Dangerous Conditions – Police Immunity In Zelig (once more), offended parties\' dad shot their mom, his ex, in a courthouse campaign. Did absence of adequate protects or absence of metal indicators (with orderlies) render the courthouse an unsafe property condition? No . The substance is invulnerable from obligation for either neglecting to give police insurance or neglecting to capture outsider assailant – so neither can make perilous condition risk for outsider assault on open property.

Slide 13

Mandatory Duty Liability When the litigant city investigates private property and finds it is shaky, the city\'s metropolitan code obliges it to advise the proprietor and record the notice. The city didn\'t record its notification concerning the property at issue The proprietor sold the property without telling the purchaser of the unsteadiness. The property was extremely harmed in the Northridge Earthquake. Did the metropolitan code force an obligatory obligation upon the city to record the takes note? Yes . Once the city chose to review and discovered unsteadiness, the code gave the city no carefulness about whether to record the notice. Was the city at risk to the landowner for disregarding its obligatory obligation? No . The necessity wasn\'t proposed to secure consequent purchasers; so they couldn\'t sue for its infringement. Haggis v. City of Los Angeles (2000) 22 Cal.4th 490. Question : Does Lockyer v. City & County of San Francisco (August 14, 2004) 33 Cal.4 th 1055 extend compulsory obligation risk and breaking point invulnerability under GC 820.2 (circumspection) and 820.4 (execution of laws)?

Slide 14

Liability from Outside the Act – Federal Constitution In Zelig (last time, we guarantee), the casualty needed to go to a family court hearing to determine her separation. The courthouse had no metal locators. State law banished the casualty from equipping herself in the courthouse. Did the district\'s inability to shield the casualty from predictable outsider brutality disregard her substantive due process rights? No . She was not in authority, or a care like circumstance; and the region did not make confirmed move that made or expanded the threat to her.

Slide 15

Liability from Outside the Act – State Constitution A city councilmember claims that the city lawyer planned with different councilmembers to hold shut gatherings without notice to her. Does the councilmember have a reason for activity for harms under the Free Speech Clause of the California Constitution? No . Applying the adjusting test for choosing whether the California Constitution makes a reason for activity, no such reason for activity is essential listen; the Brown Act and CCP 1085 give sufficient cures. Degrassi v. Cook (2002) 29 Cal.4 th 333; see additionally Katzberg v. Officials of UC (2002) 29 Cal.4th 300.

Slide 16

Liability from Outside the Act – Other California Statutes Nuisance- - yes: Nestle v. City of Santa Monica (1972) 6 Cal.3d 920 (CC 3479). Regular Carrier Liability - yes: Lopez v. SCRTD (1985) 40 Cal.3d 780 (CC 2100). Instructor\'s obligation to manage understudies - no: Hoff v. Vacaville Unified School Dist. (1999) 19 Cal.4 th 925 (EC 44807). Out of line Practices Act - no: Trinkle Cal. State Lottery (1999) 71 Cal.App.4 th 1198 (B & P 17200). CC 1714 - no: See Zelig .

Slide 17

Do Immunities in the Act Trump Liabilities Outside the Act? Outline invulnerability (GC 830.6) trumps disturbance obligation (CC 3479): Mikkelsen v. State (1976) 59 Cal.App.3d 621. Escape resistance (GC 845.8) – would it be a good idea for it to trump engine vehicle risk (VC 17000)? Optional acts invulnerability (GC 820.2) trumps FEHA risk (GC 12900 et seq): Caldwell v. Montoya (1995) 10 Cal.4 th 972.

Recommended
View more...