Opinion ID: 213017
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Preshooting Conduct

Text: While breach of duty and proximate cause normally present factual questions, the existence of a legal duty in a given factual situation is a question of law for the courts to determine. Jackson v. Ryder Truck Rental, Inc., 16 Cal.App.4th 1830, 1838, 20 Cal.Rptr.2d 913 (1993) (quoting Andrews v. Wells, 204 Cal.App.3d 533, 538, 251 Cal.Rptr. 344 (1988)). In evaluating state law, where the state's highest court has not decided an issue, the task of the federal courts is to predict how the state high court would resolve it. [3] Westlands Water Dist. v. Amoco Chemical Co., 953 F.2d 1109, 1111 (9th Cir.1991) (quoting Air-Sea Forwarders, Inc. v. Air Asia Co., Ltd., 880 F.2d 176, 186 (9th Cir.1989)) (internal quotation marks omitted). In undertaking this analysis, `a federal court . . . is not free to reject a state judicial rule of law merely because it has not received the sanction of the state's highest court.' Katz v. Children's Hosp., 28 F.3d 1520, 1528-29 (9th Cir.1994) (quoting Estrella v. Brandt, 682 F.2d 814, 817 (9th Cir.1982)). An intermediate state appellate court decision is a `datum for ascertaining state law which is not to be disregarded by a federal court unless it is convinced by other persuasive data that the highest court of the state would decide otherwise.' Estrella, 682 F.2d at 817 (quoting West v. A.T. & T. Co., 311 U.S. 223, 237, 61 S.Ct. 179, 85 L.Ed. 139 (1940)). The California Supreme Court has held that an officer's lack of due care can give rise to negligence liability for the intentional shooting death of a suspect. Munoz v. Olin, 24 Cal.3d 629, 634, 156 Cal. Rptr. 727, 596 P.2d 1143 (1979) (citing Grudt v. City of Los Angeles, 2 Cal.3d 575, 587, 86 Cal.Rptr. 465, 468 P.2d 825 (1970)). While this tort duty has been expressly applied to the use of deadly force, see id., [t]here remains an open question . . . whether an officer's lack of due care with respect to preshooting tactical decisions can give rise to liability for negligence. Brown v. Ransweiler, 171 Cal.App.4th 516, 534, 89 Cal.Rptr.3d 801 (2009). Appellant contends that Deputies King and Geer were negligent because they failed to gather all potentially available information about Hayes or request a PERT team before confronting him. Relying on two California intermediate appellate court decisions, the district court held that the deputies owed no duty of care for this preshooting conduct. See Adams v. City of Fremont, 68 Cal.App.4th 243, 276, 80 Cal.Rptr.2d 196 (1998) (On balance, the relevant public policy considerations militate against imposing a legal duty on police officers to take reasonable steps to prevent a threatened suicide from being carried out.); Munoz v. City of Union City, 120 Cal.App.4th 1077, 1097, 16 Cal.Rptr.3d 521 (2004) ([L]ike Adams, the need to protect the overall safety of the community by encouraging law enforcement officers to exercise their best judgment in deciding how to deal with public safety emergencies vastly outweighs the societal value of imposing tort liability for the judgments they make in emergency situations.). Both City of Union City and Adams relied upon factors outlined by the California Supreme Court in Rowland v. Christian, 69 Cal.2d 108, 112-13, 70 Cal.Rptr. 97, 443 P.2d 561 (1968), for determining when a tort duty is owed. Further, the court in City of Union City directly held that a police commander could be found negligent only for his decision to use deadly force in an emergency situation, not for his preshooting conduct. 120 Cal.App.4th at 1094-1110, 16 Cal. Rptr.3d 521. After the district court granted summary judgment, however, the California Supreme Court indicated that law enforcement officers might be subject to negligence liability for certain preshooting conduct. Hernandez v. City of Pomona, 46 Cal.4th 501, 515-22, 94 Cal.Rptr.3d 1, 207 P.3d 506 (2009). In Hernandez, the court granted review to consider the following question: When a federal court enters judgment in favor of the defendants in a civil rights claim brought under 42 United States Code section 1983 . . ., in which the plaintiffs seek damages for police use of deadly and constitutionally excessive force in pursuing a suspect, and the court then dismisses a supplemental state law wrongful death claim arising out of the same incident, what, if any, preclusive effect does the judgment have in a subsequent state court wrongful death action? Id. at 505, 94 Cal.Rptr.3d 1, 207 P.3d 506. The court held that on the record and conceded facts here, the federal judgment collaterally estops plaintiffs from pursuing their wrongful death claim, even on the theory that the officers' preshooting conduct was negligent. Id. at 506, 94 Cal. Rptr.3d 1, 207 P.3d 506. In doing so, the California Supreme Court did not hold that law enforcement officers owed no duty of care in regards to preshooting conduct, as the lower court in City of Union City had held. Instead, the court found that the officers' preshooting conduct did not breach applicable standards of care. Id. at 515-22, 94 Cal.Rptr.3d 1, 207 P.3d 506. The court in Hernandez did not address City of Union City or Adams, nor did it expressly determine that law enforcement officers owe a duty of care in regards to preshooting conduct. Nevertheless, the court's analysis of whether the officers' preshooting conduct independently constituted breach of a duty of care strongly indicates that California's highest court would not adopt a rule that officers owe no such duty. Indeed, in a concurring opinion, Justice Moreno argued that the court should not have reached the issue because plaintiffs are entitled to amend their complaint to allege preshooting negligence. Id. at 522, 94 Cal.Rptr.3d 1, 207 P.3d 506 (Moreno, J., concurring). The majority responded, stating we find that plaintiffs have adequately shown how they would amend their complaint to allege a preshooting negligence claim, and that we must determine whether any of the preshooting acts plaintiffs have identified can support negligence liability. Id. at 521 n. 18, 94 Cal.Rptr.3d 1, 207 P.3d 506. This discussion strongly indicates that the California Supreme Court believes a duty of care is owed and that courts must address breach and causation. [4] On the basis of the discussion in Hernandez, we conclude that the California Supreme Court is unlikely to find law enforcement officers owe no duty of care in regards to their preshooting conduct in emergency situations. Accordingly, we reverse the district court's holding that Deputies King and Geer owed no such duty, and remand for a decision on the relevant standard of care, whether the deputies breached this standard, and whether any such breach caused Hayes's death.