Cruz v. Briseno (March 24, 2000)
* Court: California Supreme Court
* Jurisdiction: Los Angeles County
* Defendant’s Job Class: Deputy Sheriff
* Trial Court: In favor of employee defendant
* Appellate Court: Against employee
* California Supreme Court: In favor of employee
* Issues: Wrongful death, vehicle pursuit, Vehicle Code section 17004
Cruz Facts
* Briseno, a Los Angeles County deputy, on November 24, 1994, while
on duty in a marked patrol vehicle, saw a speeder going 55 in a 35
mile-per-hour zone. Briseno followed.
* The driver went through a red light, smashing into Cruz’s car,
killing Cruz and injuring her children.
* Briseno did not use his lights and siren.
* Cruz’s heirs sued the county and Briseno.
* The trial court found both defendants to be immune from suit.
* Plaintiffs appealed only as to Briseno.
* the court of appeals reversed the trial court and ruled that
Briseno forfeited any immunity he possessed.
* The California Supreme Court ruled in Briseno’s favor.
Cruz Analysis
* Vehicle Code section 17004 absolves from civil liability a deputy
sheriff or police officer which respect to an accident arising from an
on-duty "immediate pursuit of an actual or suspected" law
breaker.
* The facts in this case constituted "immediate pursuit",
even though the underlying situation was not an emergency but only a
routine traffic stop.
* The court of appeal has ruled that, where a deputy has negligently
pursued without lights and siren, section 17004 does not protect the
deputy.
* The Supreme Court rejected this argument
Conclusion
The California Supreme Court in Cruz aided law
enforcement and LDF by holding that individual peace officers are not
liable for damages caused during "immediate pursuit" of
traffic violators, even where an officer does not use lights or siren.
