Hayes v. County of San Diego

In Hayes v. County of San Diego (2013) 57 Cal.4th 622, police officers shot dead a man who came toward them with a large knife in his raised hand after they entered his house during a visit triggered by a 911 call from a neighbor who reported hearing screaming. (Id. at p. 625.) The decedent's daughter later filed suit against the county and two sheriff deputies in federal court, alleging, like plaintiffs in our case, that the defendants negligently killed her father. On appeal from the grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals called upon the California Supreme Court to decide whether, as a matter of state law, law enforcement officers' conduct and decision making leading up to their use of deadly force are relevant considerations in determining whether their use of deadly force gives rise to negligence liability. (Id. at p. 630.) In response, the California Supreme Court clarified the following legal principles, which apply squarely to our case: "Except when otherwise provided by law, public employees in California are statutorily liable to the same extent as private persons for injuries caused by their acts or omissions, subject to the same defenses available to private persons. (Gov. Code, 820.) Also, public entities are generally liable for injuries caused by the negligence of their employees acting in the scope of their employment. (Id., 815.2.) Finally, close relatives and dependents of a negligently killed person can recover damages for their loss. (Code Civ. Proc., 377.60.) Under those state statutes, general principles of tort law, in particular the law of negligence, govern this case. In Hayes, after the officers arrived at the decedent's house, the decedent's girlfriend told them that, earlier in the evening, decedent had tried to kill himself. At that point, the officers entered the house, and the aforementioned deadly shooting of the suicidal decedent occurred. (Hayes, supra, 57 Cal.4th at p. 625.) "'In order to prove facts sufficient to support a finding of negligence, a plaintiff must show that the defendant had a duty to use due care, that he breached that duty, and that the breach was the proximate or legal cause of the resulting injury.' . Thus, duty is a critical element of negligence liability." (Hayes, supra, 57 Cal.4th at p. 629.) "This court has long recognized that peace officers have a duty to act reasonably when using deadly force. . The reasonableness of an officer's conduct is determined in light of the totality of circumstances. ." (Hayes, supra, 57 Cal.4th at p. 629.) In making this determination, "preshooting conduct is included in the totality of circumstances surrounding an officer's use of deadly force, and therefore the officer's duty to act reasonably when using deadly force extends to preshooting conduct. . But in a case like this one, where the preshooting conduct did not cause the plaintiff any injury independent of the injury resulting from the shooting, the reasonableness of the officers' preshooting conduct should not be considered in isolation. Rather, it should be considered in relation to the question whether the officers' ultimate use of deadly force was reasonable." (Id. at p. 632.)