Home

Table of Forms

Thesaurus

						iLaw Dictionary			USAConstitution Law
						California			Law Students-USL
						Law Dictionary			BankruptcyCode.US
						Torts-Negligence-Elements			United States Law.US

US Codes

State Codes

Evidence

Law Students-USL

Federal Civil Procedure-Main Page

Medical Dictionaries

A Legal and Business Portal-Home Page
A Legal and Business Portal-Home Page

iLaw Dictionary
California
Law Dictionary
Tort Negligence-Elements
(Munoz v. City of Union City)
A - B- C- D - E- F - G - H -I- J - L - M- K to Z

Tort Negligence Elements
(Munoz v. City of Union City)

IV.

Liability of Woodward

A. Woodward’s Duty of Care

Union City and Woodward argue they cannot be held liable for negligence in Lucilla’s shooting because, as a matter of law, they had no legal duty of care toward Lucilla. “Public entities are . . . liable for the negligent acts or omissions of their employees acting within the scope of their employment except where either the employee or the public entity is immunized from liability by statute. (§ 815.2.) . . . Where a legal duty is not created by statute, the question of whether a legal duty exists is analyzed under general principles of tort law. (See, e.g., Brenneman v. State of California (1989) 208 Cal.App.3d 812, 818 . . . .)” (Adams, supra, 68 Cal.App.4th at p. 264, fn. omitted.)

“ ‘[I]n order to prove facts sufficient to support a finding of negligence, a plaintiff must show that defendant had a duty to use due care, that he breached that duty, and that the breach was the proximate or legal cause of the resulting injury. [Citation.]’ (Nally [v. Grace Community Church (1988)] 47 Cal.3d [278,] 292-293, italics omitted.) [¶] The existence of a duty of care is a question of law to be determined by the court alone. (Ballard v. Uribe (1986) 41 Cal.3d 564, 572, fn. 6 . . . ; Stout [v. City of Porterville (1983)] 148 Cal.App.3d [937,] 942; Peter W. v. San Francisco Unified Sch. Dist. (1976) 60 Cal.App.3d 814, 822 . . . ; Raymond v. Paradise Unified School Dist. (1963) 218 Cal.App.2d 1, 8 . . . .) This is because ‘legal duties are . . . merely conclusory expressions that, in cases of a particular type, liability should be imposed for damage done.’ (Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California (1976) 17 Cal.3d 425, 434 . . . .) Duty is simply a shorthand expression for the sum total of policy considerations favoring a conclusion that the plaintiff is entitled to legal protection. (Dillon v. Legg (1968) 68 Cal.2d 728, 734 . . . .)” (Adams, supra, 68 Cal.App.4th at pp. 264-265; see Parsons v. Crown Disposal Co. (1997) 15 Cal.4th 456, 472-473 (Parsons).)

As set out in detail above, respondents’ claims against Woodward concern two separate, albeit related, aspects of the police response: First, the tactics employed by the officers at the scene during the confrontation with Lucilla and, second, the actual shooting. Respondents claimed that Woodward was negligent both because of the manner in which he supervised the police response at the scene, and because he was the one who applied deadly force against Lucilla.

Munoz v. City of Union City A0958467/23/04

Jul 23 2004

A095846
[PDF] [DOC]

Munoz v. City of Union City 7/23/04 CA1/2

A - B- C- D - E- F - G - H -I- J - L - M- K to Z
California: Authoritative-Law Dictionary: Table of Contents
Glossaries Directory Table of Contents
Thesaurus Directory
Dictionaries Directory Table of Contents