• V.C. § 17004 and Immunity from Civil Liability by a Law Enforcement Officer
• Gov’t. Code § 821.6 and a Law Enforcement Agency’s Civil Immunity
• V.C. § 17001 and Immunity from Civil Liability by a Law Enforcement Agency

(1) V.C. § 17004 provides a public employee with protection from civil liability for causing injury, death, or damage to property, when the employee uses an emergency vehicle while responding to an emergency call. 

2)  Pursuant to V.C. § 17001, a public entity is civilly liable for death or injury to a person or property proximately caused by a negligent or wrongful act or omission in the operation of a motor vehicle by an employee of the public entity acting within the scope of his or her employment.

In the early (3:37 a.m.) morning of October 14, 2019, Danuka Neshantha Silva was riding with another passenger in the back seat of an Uber (rideshare) vehicle driven by Muhammad Ragowo Reiditio.  While on U.S. Highway 101 (a Southern California freeway) near Encino, Silva and the other passenger apparently began to argue.  Reiditio didn’t like what was going on, so, after calling the California Highway Patrol, he stopped his car in the “number one (fast) lane” of the freeway and demanded that Silva and the other passenger get out of his car.  Reiditio refused to drive onto the shoulder of the freeway or to an exit ramp, necessitating Silva and the other passenger to disembark in the middle of the freeway’s traffic lanes.  Despite other CHP officers responding to Reiditio’s call, CHP Sgt. Richard Scott Langford—who heard the emergency call while inside the CHP’s West Valley Office—decided to also respond to the scene “to see if the first-responding officers ‘needed an additional hand.’” While driving over the speed limit, and without activating his emergency lights or siren, Officer Langford struck Silva as he (Silva) attempted to cross the traffic lanes to the side of the freeway.  Silva died from his injuries sustained in the collision.  Plaintiffs Marakkalage Tharal D. Silva and Shirin Ramesha Silva—Danuka Silva’s parents—sued Officer Langford and the CHP in state court alleging negligence and wrongful death.  The civil defendants filed demurrers to an amended complaint. The trial court found the claims against the civil defendants (Officer Langford and the CHP) were barred by “investigative immunity” pursuant to Government Code section 821.6, granted the demurrers, and dismissed the case in its entirety.  The Plaintiffs appealed.

The Second District Court of Appeal (Div. 7) affirmed as to Officer Langford and reversed as to the California Highway Patrol. 

(1) Officer Langford’s Civil Liability: Vehicle Code § 17004 provides for immunity from civil liability for a “public employee,” as follows:  “A public employee is not liable for civil damages on account of personal injury to or death of any person or damage to property resulting from the operation, in the line of duty, of an authorized emergency vehicle while responding to an emergency call . . . , or when responding to but not upon returning from a fire alarm or other emergency call.”  On appeal, during oral arguments, the plaintiffs’ attorney conceded that Officer Langford was in fact operating his patrol car in the line of duty when he was responding to an emergency call and struck and killed Danuka Silva.  The officer’s failure to use his lights and siren was apparently not an issue in that it was not even discussed.  And the fact that the trial court may have used the wrong immunity statute (i.e., Gov’t. Code § 821.6—historically being used primarily to protect public prosecutors from claims of malicious prosecution—as opposed to V.C. § 17004), was noted to be irrelevant.  Per V.C. § 17004, Officer Langford was immune from civil liability. 

(2) The CHP’s Civil Liability:  The trial court, when it heard the case, granted the CHP’s demurrer, holding that the agency was immune from civil liability under authority of Gov’t. Code § 821.6.  The Court of Appeal ruled that this was error.  After torturing us with a long line of cases (three pages worth) and the disjointed judicial history of section 821.6, dealing with the potential civil liability of both public entities such as the CHP as well as their employees, the Court here determined that it need not decide these issues because, as noted above, (1) Langford, as a public employee, is immune from suit under Vehicle Code § 17004, and (2) the CHP itself may in fact be liable under a whole different section; i.e., Vehicle Code § 17001.  The trial court, in making its ruling, had neglected to consider V.C. § 17001.  Per V.C. § 17001: “A public entity is liable for death or injury to person or property proximately caused by a negligent or wrongful act or omission in the operation of any motor vehicle by an employee of the public entity acting within the scope of his employment.”  Despite some possible contrary inferences made in various civil liability immunity statutes, section 17001 clearly provides for the CHP’s liability in this case.  (See Brummett v. County of Sacramento (1978) 21 Cal.3rd 880, 885-886.)  The Court therefore ruled that the trial court had erroneously granted the CHP’s demurrer and remanded the case to the trial court to correct this error.

This is a very confusing, poorly written case decision with a lot of excess verbiage that was unnecessary to reach the bottom line here, and which the Court could have eliminated from its written decision.  In writing this brief, I ignored the Court’s verbal regurgitations as much as possible without compromising the Court’s relevant conclusions.  So there’s a lot in the Court’s decision that I just glossed over, if I discussed it at all.  That having been said, if, as an attorney (plaintiff or respondent), you have a case involving a law enforcement officer or a public entity’s possible civil liability where statutory immunity may apply, you need to take a look at this case decision as written by the Court to see if there’s anything that‘s relevant to your case.  If as a law enforcement officer, you are sued as a result of your alleged negligence or other wrongful act, you need to direct the attorney who represents you (county counsel ) in civil court to this case decision to make sure your interests are protected.