HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 1994 0316 CC REG ITEM 08VSusan M. Schectman
City Attorney
(415)738-7307
FAX(415)359-6038
ITEM $• v
Office of the City Attorney
City of Pacifica
170 Santa Maria Avenue-
PaCifica.Califoinio )4()44
February 22, 1994
To: All California City Attorneys
Re: Dutton v. Quinn - Request for Amicus Participation
Dear Colleagues:
c�
e�►rUin . � /iir /ie rr
--»nr>K (' -,
i�
On behalf of the City of Pacifica, I am writing to request your City's support for
an amicus brief on behalf of interested California cities in this significant law enforcement
case. The League of California Cities' Legal Advocacy Committee voted to encourage
cities to file amicus briefs and we would greatly appreciate your participation.
This case involves the circumstances under which police officers are responsible
for the safety of the occupants of a vehicle they encounter in an investigatory stop. In
the course of their daily duties, police officers continually encounter and stop vehicles for
a variety of law enforcement purposes. A police department does not have the resources
nor the legal duty to insure the safety of the vehicle in which occupants are riding.
In Dutton v. Quinn, a Pacifica police officer encountered several teenagers in a
pickup truck in a City park after curfew. The police officer ordered the passengers out
of the park. Some of the passengers were seated in the cab of the pickup truck; some
were standing next to the truck. The passengers left the park in a camper shell on the
back of the pickup truck. Approximately one -half hour later and about seven miles away,
the driver lost control of the truck, crashing the truck and injuring the plaintiff. This
lawsuit is an effort to make the police department responsible for the injuries suffered by
the passengers. The plaintiff has argued that in this circumstance the City had a duty to
prevent harm to the passengers since an officer had ordered the passengers to get in the
truck and leave the park.
As a general rule, a police officer has no duty to passengers to control the
negligent conduct of a third party driver. Here, plaintiff seeks to impose liability upon
the City on the theory that the police officer had created a peril to plaintiff and therefore
a special relationship had been created imposing such a duty on the officer. Plaintiff
argues that the officer owed a duty of care to plaintiff and that the duty was breached,
since the police officer should not have ordered the vehicle to leave, but instead should
have remained at the scene until alternate and safer transportation arrangements were
made. These include allowing the minor female plaintiff to walk home at 11:00 p.m.,
transporting the plaintiff in the officer's police car, calling parents or making some other
arrangements. RECEIVED
FEB 25 1994
City Attorneys
Dutton v. Ouinn Amkus Suppon
February 22, 1994, Page 2
The City's argument is that no peril was created since riding in a camper is a legal
activity permitted under the Vehicle Code. Even if there were a duty, there was no
breach of it by merely ordering the occupants of the vehicle to leave the park. The City
is also arguing lack of proximate cause due to the intervening stops and also arguing that
various Government Code immunities apply.
Obviously, imposition of a duty in this case has widespread implications. If a
police officer owes an affirmative duty in this situation, investigating officers would be
faced with a very difficult choice: either to ignore a violation of law and refuse to
become involved in law enforcement activities in the first place, or stop to investigate and
thereby become bound to guarantee the safety of the persons and to remain at the scene,
despite competing calls for assistance in more serious situations, until safe and adequate
alternate transportation has been arranged. Whenever officers encounter a vehicle with
some arguable hazard (a drunk driver, faulty brakes, bald tires) there could be a duty to
remain at the scene in order to prevent the driver from leaving and to take charge of a
situation that the police officer did not create.
The City was successful on summary judgment in Superior Court and the plaintiffs
have now appealed. It is very important that the appellate court be made aware of the
potential impact of an adverse ruling on the law enforcement resources of cities. In this
era of shrinking municipal budgets and increasing demand for police services, the ability
of a city to allocate its police resources as it sees fit is critical. If the appellate court
were to rule in favor of the plaintiff, police officers could have a legal duty to insure the
safety of drivers and the occupants of their vehicles they encounter on pain of civil
liability. Obviously, no city has the resources to carry this heavy burden.
We would appreciate your friend of the court support in this significant case. We
have enclosed an authorization form for your convenience. PLEASE SIGN AND
RETURN THE FORM TO ME BY APRIL 1, 1994.
Very truly yours,
SUSAN M. SCHECTMAN
City Attorney
SMS:fd
Enclosure