County of Sacramento v. Superior Court
147 Cal. Rptr. 3d 196
Cal. Ct. App.2012Background
- Sacramento County moved for summary judgment arguing absolute immunity under Welfare and Institutions Code § 5358.1 in a tort action arising from a conservator’s failure to warn about a conservatee’s violence.
- The conservatee had a documented 20-year history of violent attacks and criminal convictions, and the conservator allegedly failed to warn care facilities.
- After placement at facilities, the conservatee killed decedent Pausta Sibarani and seriously injured her husband, Tumbur Purba.
- Real party in interest alleged negligence and vicarious liability for the conservator’s failure to warn, seeking damages for wrongful death and related claims.
- The trial court found there was a duty to warn but held the immunity was not broad enough to foreclose liability; the court did not grant summary judgment.
- The Court of Appeal held that § 5358.1 provides absolute immunity to the conservator, and directed issuance of a writ directing the trial court to grant summary judgment for the County.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 5358.1 provides absolute immunity for conservators | Purba contends immunity may be qualified or non-existent under public policy. | County asserts § 5358.1 grants absolute immunity irrespective of facts. | Yes, § 5358.1 provides absolute immunity. |
| Whether immunity defeats a duty to warn claim against the conservator | Duty to warn could give rise to liability despite immunity. | Immunity precludes civil liability for conservatee’s acts, including failure to warn. | Immunity bars civil liability for the conservator’s actions related to the conservatee. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gates v. Superior Court, 32 Cal.App.4th 481 (1995) (immunity principles in public entity torts and scope of statutory immunities)
- Michael E. L. v. County of San Diego, 183 Cal.App.3d 515 (1986) (duty to warn vs. immunity in detained or released detainee context)
- Johnson v. County of Ventura, 29 Cal.App.4th 1400 (1994) (immunity in detention/parole related decisions applicable to public entities)
- Ley v. State of California, 114 Cal.App.4th 1297 (2004) (Penal Code § 1618 immunities for CONREP personnel; public policy of immunity for certain mental health supervision)
- Coburn v. Sievert, 133 Cal.App.4th 1483 (2005) (hypotheticals regarding immunity scope for mental health professionals)
- Storch v. Silverman, 186 Cal.App.3d 671 (1986) (reporters of suspected child abuse and absolute immunity considerations)
- Whitcombe v. County of Yolo, 73 Cal.App.3d 698 (1977) (immunity principle in public liability context)
- Rehman v. Department of Motor Vehicles, 178 Cal.App.4th 581 (2009) (absurd result doctrine in statutory immunity analysis)