Source: http://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/weekly-law-resume-january-26-2012-po-40829/
Timestamp: 2015-11-28 04:45:17
Document Index: 392238629

Matched Legal Cases: ['§815', '§821', '§815', '§815', '§815', '§815', '§821', '§821', '§821']

Weekly Law Resume - January 26, 2012: Police Officers – Investigative Immunity Applies Even Where “Special Relationship” With Injured Motorist Exists | Low, Ball & Lynch - JDSupra
Ronald Strong v. State of California Court of Appeal, Second District (November 20, 2011)
Law enforcement officers often face lawsuits arising from their conduct at accident scenes and in subsequent investigations. In this case, the Court of Appeal, Second District, examined the contours of an officer’s duty to motorists involved in accidents as well as the statutory immunity for the officer’s investigation.
Plaintiff Jack Strong was riding his motorcycle in Malibu on May 15, 2006, when the driver of a second vehicle entered the roadway unsafely, colliding with and injuring him. California Highway Patrol Officer Christopher Swanberg arrived at the scene and spoke with Strong, who asked the officer for the identity of the second driver. Officer Swanberg did not provide the requested information at that time, but assured Strong that it would be in the accident report. Relying on this assurance, Strong did not secure that information himself. Officer Swanberg then apparently lost or destroyed the second driver’s contact information. In his accident report, he inaccurately attributed fault for the accident to Strong. The CHP conducted an internal investigation, concluding that Officer Swanberg improperly lost the contact information and then wrote a traffic report erroneously faulting Strong.
Download PDF San Francisco Office 505 Montgomery Street, 7th Floor | San Francisco, CA 94111 | Phone: 415-981-6630 | Fax: 415-982-1634 Monterey Office 2 Lower Ragsdale Drive, Suite 120 | Monterey, CA 93940 | Telephone: (831) 655-8822 | Fax: (831) 655-8881 Web: www.lowball.com WEEKLY LAW RESUME™ Issue By: DIRK D. LARSEN January 26, 2012 Police Officers – Investigative Immunity Applies Even Where ―Special Relationship‖ With Injured Motorist Exists Ronald Strong v. State of California Court of Appeal, Second District (November 20, 2011) Law enforcement officers often face lawsuits arising from their conduct at accident scenes and in subsequent investigations. In this case, the Court of Appeal, Second District, examined the contours of an officer’s duty to motorists involved in accidents as well as the statutory immunity for the officer’s investigation. Plaintiff Jack Strong was riding his motorcycle in Malibu on May 15, 2006, when the driver of a second vehicle entered the roadway unsafely, colliding with and injuring him. California Highway Patrol Officer Christopher Swanberg arrived at the scene and spoke with Strong, who asked the officer for the identity of the second driver. Officer Swanberg did not provide the requested information at that time, but assured Strong that it would be in the accident report. Relying on this assurance, Strong did not secure that information himself. Officer Swanberg then apparently lost or destroyed the second driver’s contact information. In his accident report, he inaccurately attributed fault for the accident to Strong. The CHP conducted an internal investigation, concluding that Officer Swanberg improperly lost the contact information and then wrote a traffic report erroneously faulting Strong. Strong’s injuries required considerable medical care, including surgery and chronic-pain management. He had no medical insurance and was unable to work. Without the second San Francisco Office 505 Montgomery Street, 7th Floor | San Francisco, CA 94111 | Phone: 415-981-6630 | Fax: 415-982-1634 Monterey Office 2 Lower Ragsdale Drive, Suite 120 | Monterey, CA 93940 | Telephone: (831) 655-8822 | Fax: (831) 655-8881 Web: www.lowball.com driver’s identifying information, Strong was unable to seek legal recourse for damages from that driver. Strong sued Officer Swanberg and the State of California—the officer’s employer through the CHP—for various claims, including negligence under Government Code §815.6 and negligence based on the ―special relationship‖ theory. The defendants asserted the defense of the investigative immunity pursuant to Government Code §821.6. Prior to trial, Strong dismissed the officer and all causes of action except the two negligence claims. The case was tried to a judge, who found the State liable on both claims. It found that the CHP ―Collision Investigation Manual‖ and CHP Form 555, the ―Traffic Collision Report‖ form, imposed on Officer Swanberg a mandatory duty pursuant to §815.6 to acquire and retain the second driver’s contact information. The trial judge also found that a special relationship existed between Officer Swanberg and Strong, imposing a duty on the officer to collect the information, because Strong reasonably—and to his detriment—relied on the officer’s assurance that the information would be obtained. The State appealed. The Court of Appeal reversed. It first addressed Strong’s claim under Government Code §815.6, which provides a cause of action for the breach of a mandatory statutory duty. The Strong court noted that §815.6 only applies to duties imposed by ―enactments‖—i.e., statutes, ordinances or regulations—enacted by the Legislature or adopted pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act. In this case, there was no evidence that the CHP ―Collision Investigation Manual‖ or CHP Form 555 constituted ―enactments‖ under that definition. Accordingly, the State could not be liable under §815.6 for breach of any mandatory statutory duty. The court then turned to the issue of whether a ―special relationship‖ between Strong and Officer Swanberg imposed a duty on the officer to retain the second driver’s contact information. Citing the California Supreme Court’s decision in Williams v. State of California (1983) 34 Cal.3d 18, the Strong court noted that ―stopping to aid a motorist does not, in itself, create a special relationship which would give rise‖ to a duty to secure information or preserve evidence for subsequent civil litigation. Instead, the officer must assume a duty to the motorist greater than normally owed to third parties by, for example, creating the peril in which the San Francisco Office 505 Montgomery Street, 7th Floor | San Francisco, CA 94111 | Phone: 415-981-6630 | Fax: 415-982-1634 Monterey Office 2 Lower Ragsdale Drive, Suite 120 | Monterey, CA 93940 | Telephone: (831) 655-8822 | Fax: (831) 655-8881 Web: www.lowball.com motorist found herself; taking affirmative action that contributed to or increased the risk that would have otherwise existed; or voluntarily assuming responsibility to protect the motorist’s prospects for civil recovery, on which the motorist relied to her detriment. The Strong court found that a special relationship existed in that case: Strong expressly asked Officer Swanberg for the identity of the second driver, the officer promised to provide the information, and Strong, who was injured, relied to his detriment on the officer’s promise. Accordingly, Officer Swanberg owed Strong a duty to collect and preserve the second driver’s identifying information. While Officer Swanberg owed Strong a duty based on the special relationship, the court held that Government Code §821.6 immunized him from liability for failing to perform that duty. Section 821.6 provides that ―[a] public employee is not liable for injury caused by his instituting or prosecuting any judicial or administrative proceeding within the scope of his employment, even if he acts maliciously and without probable cause.‖ While this section is usually applied to immunize prosecuting attorneys, prior cases do not restrict it to legally trained personnel but have held it to apply to police officers, who are also public employees. The Strong court agreed with the State that Officer Swanberg lost the second driver’s information during the course of an official CHP investigation. Accordingly, he was entitled to the immunity of §821.6. The Court of Appeal reversed the judgment in Strong’s favor and ordered that a new judgment be entered in favor of the State. COMMENT The Strong decision is very favorable for law-enforcement officers and their employing agencies. While the court found that a special relationship existed between the officer and the injured motorist, it did so only under the narrow circumstances of this case: the officer’s promise to obtain information and the motorist’s detrimental reliance on that promise. More significantly, however, the Strong decision reaffirms the breadth of Government Code §821.6’s investigative immunity, finding it to apply even where the officer breached a duty imposed by a special relationship. San Francisco Office 505 Montgomery Street, 7th Floor | San Francisco, CA 94111 | Phone: 415-981-6630 | Fax: 415-982-1634 Monterey Office 2 Lower Ragsdale Drive, Suite 120 | Monterey, CA 93940 | Telephone: (831) 655-8822 | Fax: (831) 655-8881 Web: www.lowball.com For a copy of the complete decision see: HTTP://WWW.COURTINFO.CA.GOV/OPINIONS/DOCUMENTS/B225885.PDF This content is provided for informational purposes only. The content is not intended and should not be construed as legal advice. Visit our website for a fully searchable archive of past editions of the Weekly Law Resume and other Low, Ball & Lynch publications. The Weekly Law Resume TM is published fifty-two times a year, and is a complimentary publication of Low, Ball & Lynch, Attorneys at Law, a Professional Corporation, with offices in San Francisco and Monterey, California. Information regarding this and other Weekly Law Resume TM articles is available at www.lowball.com.