The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About08 AMICUS BRIEF 08-15-94 PENDA_ NO. 8 8-15-94 Inter-Com DATE: August 9, 1994 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: WILLIAM A. HUSTON, CITY MANAGER CITY ATTORNEY JOINDER IN SUPREME COURT AMICUS BRIEF IN KNOTT V. STATE; PUBLIC ENTITIES SHOULD NOT HELD LIABLE FOR EMPLOYEE'S CRIMINAL ACTS Recommendation It is recommended that the city Council authorize the City Attorney to join in an amicus brief being filed on behalf of cities and counties in Knott v. State. This is in support of the principle that public entities should not be held vicariously liable for the criminal acts of their employees. This joinder does not require any expenditure of funds by the City. Discussion The California Supreme Court granted review of Knott v. State in June of 1994. In Knott, the state was held liable for a CHP officer's first degree murder of a motorist. Knott raises the issue of whether public entities may be held vicariously liable for the criminal acts of their employees. It is hoped that the Supreme Court's decision to grant review will lead to a reappraisal of its disastrous rule of public entity vicarious liability annunciated in Mary M. v. City of Los Anqeles (1991), 54 Cal.3d 202. In that case, the City was held vicariously liable for a police officer's rape of a motorist. The central issue that the Supreme Court will consider is whether the actions of the CHP officer in Knott were within the "scope of employment" provision of the Tort Claims Act. (Government Cope Section 815.2(a).) If the actions are within the scope of employment, the public entity must defend and indemnify their employee. The California Supreme Court decision in Mary M. has had the effect of expanding City's obligations to defend in other cases of criminal activity by law enforcement personnel. In addition, the Mary M. rule has been used to argue for city liability in cases involving criminal wrongdoing by other city employees. For your additional information, we have enclosed a copy of an article about Knott from a legal newspaper, the Los Angeles Daily Journal. LE J: cas :D: 08/09/94: (T73) Enclosure cc: W. D. Franks, Chief of Police Christine Shingleton, Assistant City Manager LOS ANGELES 915 East Fiat Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012 213/229-5300 Supreme Court Eyes Vicarious Responsibility Sigmllng A po~ble sl'~ft in ~n. ~y ~at it ~ d~de fled W ~vw d~ d~e~ g~ ~t ~e~ ~y ~ a~ut · fiously responsible for ~me~ ~ by ~. M~ M. e. Jusdm M~n [ ~er.~ey · e ~e of '~d~ ~ff ~t ~nuous~ ~ ~ held ~ ~b~. !~'~4.~,~t Wente~ar Vote The o~er r~o vo~es catme Werde~'s most impel By ~n~ no~ of ~e ~ ~' Mo~ ~d ~ oP~n's au~or. JoYce L ~n~a~ ~e o~w ~o ~ ~ ~e ~' M. ~d~ -- ~An E. Bmus~ ~d ~ ~ held ~us~ ~ ~ ~e ~ ~ by im ~ o~. ~e issue arose a~er CHP o~eer C~: Pcy~ wa~ fo~d ~;1~ ~n: 2~year~ld C~a ~on E~ondido ~d ~ Diego an Dec. 17, 1~. P~, ~'ho ~' ~d a ~s~ of ~ women ~ ~t on Ion~, ~n~ conve~gons, was ~n. d~e on du~.. P~, ~o~ ~on ~ upheld 1~, is ~n0y ~ a ~n~ of ~y~ ~ ~e ~ s~ ~n. for ne~: ~u~sion ~d res~ndeat superior dot.ne. Du~ng ~. ~ Diego Su~fior ~u~ Judge ~es R M~en ~l~ Peyer · ~ ~in ~e ~co~ of his employ- ~t ~ ~e ~ ~fld not ~ hdd ous~ ~bl~ M~en ~ow~ ~e ~ Diego ruled ~ere was State Justices Will Consider Case of Vicarious Liability *vidmce to sdppot~ the ~tuys verdict on negligent ~upe~ision end re~ ~e ~o~' ~u~ m hold ~e ~ ~ ~e ~c ~mc~u it made ~ co~g ~e ~o~ con~nd~ for ~rc~ the~'n to exit at n pm'ticular paint on e . .fi'~'?a. y. Rut in the clvO ,~, the f~. ~uch ~ ~ ~ ~ent ~at However, ~e ap~ court rcvcm~ Milliken on the respondent superlot ~ ~ ~ ~ Ma~ ~, a ~ 'Here, -t-.ming/(nags alle~,afions are true, Peye~z criminal ennduct flowed t~ctly Mto Peyer's abuse of his authority as S la'a/:~: officer ~iit therefore, aa ~n Mary IV/.. k ia a~"npria~ fl'tat O~. co~t r~- suiting from such toiSuse should be bG~,.rne ~y the public." wrote Justice lbert Nares. jobled By Justice Da.qlel The ~ourt ardcn:d a new ~ the scope of bls emplorment is g~aerally a factual que..~on for · Justice Charloa ,Frochllch Jr. curred, but urged the state Supretoe dec~ded.' lie '~"d th.e l~l decb~on pose~ 'u~warrante~ exlx~d~" on entities a~d ~ald llax~t'e opln~on spelL~ oat vnet fl~e la~ 'r. Xo~d h._." In asking the high court to review Wahr2 Mb.~l o~ F~l;ch's oj~'Gon tn tack Ma~ bt., raying ·ppcal ~0arts arc · .opb/L~g it too bre.~lly. She sa/d the should not be held llah~e f~- Pe./eFa lionel misconduct when the jury found it w~ blameles,. The slat: was backed by the Lo.me Calii'om~a Cities and the CalLtomia Sca~ 3..~x:iafion of Counr;e~ which claime~t there is no a/tonlable insurat~ for such