Sacramento County Deputy Sheriff's Association v. County of
Sacramento (December 22, 2000)
* court: California Appellate
* public agency: County of Sacramento
* plaintiffs: Sacramento DSA
* defendant: County of Sacramento
* trial court's decision: against plaintiffs
* Appellate Court: against plaintiffs
* issue area: assumption of risk, firefighter's rule, canine
officer
Farnam Facts
* CHP
Officer Morrison, a canine officer, went to the scene of an
apprehended felon. Officer
Morrison's "canine companion" [that's the court's term]
Barry was with him. Officer
Morrison exited his car with Barry; Barry mistook Los Alamitos Police
Officer Farnam for the suspect, broke free, and bit Officer Farnam.
* Officer Farnam sued Officer Morrison and Morrison's
employer, i.e., the State of California.
* The trial court granted summary judgment against
Officer Farnam.
* The appellate court sustained the trial court.
Farnam Analysis
*
The legal doctrine applicable to the case is called "assumption
of risk", meaning it will be assumed by a court that you
knew what you were doing when you engaged in an activity.
* The "assumption of risk" doctrine when
applied to an employment situation is called the "firefighter's
rule". In other
words, if you accept employment that involves a known danger and you
suffer injuries due to that danger, you cannot sue the person causing
the danger. So, for
example, firefighting employees of a refinery injured fighting a
fire at the refinery caused by the negligence of a maintenance
employee could not sue the maintenance company because the
firefighters assumed risk of the injury as a result of fighting fires
when they chose to become firefighters.
Similarly, a police officer injured in pursuing a speeder
cannot sue the speeder; a nurse's aide employed to care for a violent
patient cannot sue the patient when he thereafter injured her; and a
veterinarian's assistant bitten by a dog the assistant was treating
cannot sue the owner of the dog.
* In the 1998 Calatayud case, a CHP
officer, while trying to subdue a suspect, accidentally shot a city
police officer. The
California Supreme Court held that the firefighter's rule applied, and
so the police officer could not sue the CHP officer or the State.
* Under these authorities, Officer Farnam loses,
because "the hazard posed by the police dog is inherent in the
activity the public hired plaintiff [i.e., Farnam] to perform".
Thus, the "assumption of risk" doctrine bars Officer
Farnam's claim.
* The dissent argues that the firefighter's rule
does not apply, since the dog's biting of Officer Farnam was not the
activity as to which Officer Farnam was summoned.
