471 P.3d 329
Cal.2020Background
- On Aug. 3, 2012 deputies in Compton subdued Darren Burley; Deputy David Aviles pressed his knees into Burley’s back and head while others tased and struck him. Burley was handcuffed, hobble‑restrained, found unresponsive, resuscitated, never regained consciousness, and died 10 days later.
- Plaintiffs sued the County and deputies for battery, negligence, and wrongful death; a jury found Aviles committed battery and allocated 20% of responsibility for the death to him, 40% to Burley, and 40% to other deputies.
- The jury awarded $8 million in noneconomic damages; the trial court entered judgment against Aviles for the full noneconomic amount because his liability was based on an intentional tort (battery).
- The Court of Appeal held Civil Code § 1431.2 (Proposition 51) requires apportionment of noneconomic damages among defendants in proportion to fault, including intentional tortfeasors, and reduced Aviles’s judgment accordingly.
- The California Supreme Court granted review to resolve a split (notably Thomas v. Duggins) and held § 1431.2 does not permit intentional tortfeasors to reduce their noneconomic‑damages liability based on others’ negligence; it reversed the Court of Appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 1431.2 allows an intentional tortfeasor to have noneconomic damages reduced by others’ negligence | §1431.2 applies only to actions "based upon principles of comparative fault" and thus does not cover intentional torts like battery | The statute’s language ("the liability of each defendant") and purpose require apportionment for every defendant, regardless of intent | Held: §1431.2 does not authorize reduction of an intentional tortfeasor’s noneconomic damages based on comparative‑fault allocations to others |
| Whether external materials (§1431.1 findings, unpassed bill language, ballot materials) require reading §1431.2 to include intentional tortfeasors | Plaintiffs: those materials do not show an intent to change longstanding rules excluding intentional tortfeasors from comparative‑fault apportionment | Defendants: the ballot materials and §1431.1 show voters intended to treat all defendants the same and made no exception for intentional actors | Held: Context and ballot materials do not overcome the statutory text and historical common‑law background; they do not show an intent to extend apportionment to intentional tortfeasors |
Key Cases Cited
- Thomas v. Duggins Constr. Co., Inc., 139 Cal.App.4th 1105 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006) (held intentional tortfeasor not entitled to apportionment under Proposition 51)
- Li v. Yellow Cab Co., 13 Cal.3d 804 (Cal. 1975) (abolished contributory negligence and adopted pure comparative negligence; did not decide intentional torts)
- American Motorcycle Assn. v. Superior Court, 20 Cal.3d 578 (Cal. 1978) (retained joint and several liability for negligent concurrent tortfeasors; modified equitable indemnity to permit comparative apportionment among negligent tortfeasors)
- Daly v. General Motors Corp., 20 Cal.3d 725 (Cal. 1978) (extended comparative principles to strict products liability)
- Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Nest‑Kart, 21 Cal.3d 322 (Cal. 1978) (apportionment among negligent and strictly liable defendants appropriate)
- DaFonte v. Up‑Right, Inc., 2 Cal.4th 593 (Cal. 1992) (apportioned noneconomic damages among defendants based on comparative fault; did not address intentional torts)
- Diaz v. Carcamo, 51 Cal.4th 1148 (Cal. 2011) (§1431.2 does not require allocation to an employer admitted vicariously liable for employee negligence)
- Phelps v. Superior Court, 136 Cal.App.3d 802 (Cal. Ct. App. 1982) (damages from intentional torts not subject to apportionment)
- Heiner v. Kmart Corp., 84 Cal.App.4th 335 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000) (apportionment improper for injuries inflicted by battery)
- Weidenfeller v. Star & Garter, 1 Cal.App.4th 1 (Cal. Ct. App. 1991) (permitted negligent defendants to reduce liability based on fault attributable to a nonparty intentional actor; did not hold intentional tortfeasors are entitled to apportionment)