Bologna v. City & County of San Francisco
192 Cal. App. 4th 429
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Anthony Bologna and two of his sons were killed in San Francisco while stopped in traffic; Andrew witnessed the murders.
- Edwin Ramos, an undocumented immigrant with ties to MS-13, committed the killings and had prior drug offenses and violence in SF.
- Ramos had prior police contacts and juvenile system referrals; City allegedly transported and housed him in juvenile facilities.
- Plaintiffs allege San Francisco’s sanctuary policies shielded Ramos from reporting to ICE, enabling continued criminal activity.
- Plaintiffs assert state and federal reporting statutes were violated and that it was foreseeable Ramos would commit violence against San Francisco residents.
- Plaintiffs asserted claims for general negligence, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and breaches of statutorily mandated duties.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether sanctuary policies support negligence per se | Bologna argues 669 provides duty when statute violated causing harm | City asserts statute not designed to prevent this harm | No; statute does not support viable negligence per se claim |
| Whether mandatory duty under Government Code 815.6 applies | Duty to enforce reporting could avert injury | Duty not designed to prevent these injuries; benefits incidental | No; 815.6 not satisfied for this injury |
| Whether Health and Safety Code 11369 creates a tort liability | Section 11369 reporting requirements caused damages when not followed | Statute targets narcotics enforcement, not violence prevention; not design to prevent this harm | No; statutory purpose incidental to public safety does not create tort liability |
| Whether 8 U.S.C. 1373(a) creates a tort liability | Section 1373 prevents sanctuary policies and thus liability arises | Engagement with immigration information is federal policy; not a tort basis | No; not designed to protect the public from violent crime; no tort liability |
Key Cases Cited
- Fonseca v. Fong, 167 Cal.App.4th 922 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) (section 11369 aimed at combating narcotics, not tort liability)
- Guzman v. County of Monterey, 46 Cal.4th 887 (Cal. 2009) (mandatory duty must align with the specific injury prevented)
- Nunn v. State of California, 35 Cal.3d 616 (Cal. 1984) (incidental benefits do not sustain liability under 815.6)
- Keech v. Berkeley Unified School Dist., 162 Cal.App.3d 464 (Cal. App. 1984) (duty analysis requires statute designed to prevent the injury)
- Hoff v. Vacaville Unified School Dist., 19 Cal.4th 925 (Cal. 1999) (duty of care analysis for negligence per se and mandatory duties)
- Rice v. Center Point, Inc., 154 Cal.App.4th 949 (Cal. App. 2007) (negligence per se presumption supplies standard of care)
- Kinney v. CSB Construction, Inc., 87 Cal.App.4th 28 (Cal. App. 2001) (negligence per se discussion in duty context)
- Eisner v. Uveges, 34 Cal.4th 915 (Cal. 2004) (negligence per se may establish duty of care in some contexts)