Opinion ID: 3158633
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: California Government Claims Act

Text: Under the California Government Claims Act (Gov. Code, § 810 et seq.), governmental tort liability must be based on statute. ―Except as otherwise provided by statute: [¶] [a] public entity is not liable for an injury, whether such injury arises out of an act or omission of the public entity or a public employee or any other person.‖ (Gov. Code, § 815, subd. (a)); see Miklosy v. Regents of University of California (2008) 44 Cal.4th 876, 899.) Relevant to this case, Government Code section 815.6 provides a statutory exception to the general rule of public entity immunity: ―Where a public entity is under a mandatory duty imposed by an enactment that is designed to protect against the risk of a particular kind of injury, the public entity is liable for an injury of that kind proximately caused by its failure to discharge the duty unless the public entity establishes that it exercised reasonable diligence to discharge the duty.‖ (Gov. Code, § 815.6.) In Guzman v. County of Monterey (2009) 46 Cal.4th 887 (Guzman), we explained that Government Code section 815.6 has three elements that must be satisfied to impose public entity liability: (1) a mandatory duty was imposed on the public entity by an enactment; (2) the enactment was designed to protect 8 against the particular kind of injury allegedly suffered; and (3) the breach of the mandatory statutory duty proximately caused the injury. Even when a duty exists, California has enacted specific immunity statutes that, if applicable, prevail over liability provisions. (Creason v. Department of Health Services (1998) 18 Cal.4th 623, 635.) The first question always is whether there is liability for breach of a mandatory duty. (Creason, at p. 630.) If there is no liability, the issue of immunity never arises. (Ibid.; Guzman, at p. 911, fn. 16.) In addition to liability under Government Code section 815.6, the complaint alleged that defendants were negligent under Government Code section 815.2. Section 815.2 provides: ―(a) A public entity is liable for injury proximately caused by an act or omission of an 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. [¶] (b) Except as otherwise provided by statute, a public entity is not liable for an injury resulting from an act or omission of an employee of the public entity where the employee is immune from liability.‖ Generally, a public employee is ―liable for injury caused by his act or omission to the same extent as a private person.‖ (Gov. Code, § 820, subd. (a).) However, as relevant here, ―a public employee is not liable for an injury resulting from his act or omission where the act or omission was the result of the exercise of the discretion vested in him, whether or not such discretion be abused.‖ (Gov. Code, § 820.2.) In addition, ―[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.‖ (Gov. Code, § 821.6.) 9