Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

tortdefendantdamagesnegligenceliabilitystatuteappeal
tortplaintiffdefendantdamagesnegligenceliabilitystatutemotion

Related Cases

Simonsen v. Ford Motor Co., 196 Or.App. 460, 102 P.3d 710, Prod.Liab.Rep. (CCH) P 17,234
View Case »
Rice v. Diocese of Altoona-Johnstown, 667 Pa. 92, 255 A.3d 237
View Case »
Woodruff v. Tomlin, 616 F.2d 924
View Case »
Marshall v. Ranne, 511 S.W.2d 255
View Case »
White v. Muniz, 999 P.2d 814, 2000 CJ C.A.R. 1944
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

B.B. v. County of Los Angeles, 10 Cal.5th 1, 471 P.3d 329, 267 Cal.Rptr.3d 203, 20 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8047, 2020 Daily Journal D.A.R. 8403

Facts

On August 3, 2012, deputies from the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department responded to a report of an assault and encountered Darren Burley, who appeared to be under the influence of PCP. After a struggle, deputies used excessive force to subdue Burley, leading to his death ten days later. The jury found that Deputy David Aviles committed battery by using unreasonable force, attributing 20% of the responsibility for Burley's death to him, while the other deputies and Burley himself were also found to share responsibility.

On the evening of August 3, 2012, the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department received a report of an ongoing assault in Compton, California.

Issue

Does Civil Code section 1431.2 allow for a reduction in liability for intentional tortfeasors based on the negligence of other parties?

The issue here is the extent of Aviles's liability for 'noneconomic damages,' which, for purposes of applying section 1431.2, are defined as 'subjective, non-monetary losses including, but not limited to, pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental suffering, emotional distress, loss of society and companionship, loss of consortium, injury to reputation and humiliation.'

Rule

Civil Code section 1431.2 states that in actions for personal injury, property damage, or wrongful death, the liability of each defendant for noneconomic damages shall be several only and shall not be joint, meaning each defendant is liable only for the amount of noneconomic damages allocated to them in direct proportion to their percentage of fault.

In any action for personal injury, property damage, or wrongful death, based upon principles of comparative fault, the liability of each defendant for non-economic damages shall be several only and shall not be joint.

Analysis

The court analyzed the application of section 1431.2 to intentional tortfeasors, concluding that the statute does not permit a reduction in liability for noneconomic damages based on the negligence of others. The court emphasized that the statute's language and the historical context of California law regarding intentional torts support this interpretation.

We agree with plaintiffs that there are several problems with defendants' textual analysis.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal's judgment, holding that the statute does not authorize a reduction in liability for intentional tortfeasors based on the negligence of other actors.

We granted review to address this split of authority and to consider section 1431.2's application to intentional tortfeasors.

Who won?

The prevailing party was the family of the deceased arrestee, as the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal's decision that would have reduced the deputy's liability.

The Supreme Court, Chin, J., held that statute does not authorize a reduction in liability of intentional tortfeasors for noneconomic damages based on the negligence of other actors.

You must be