Doe v. City of Modesto CA5
F071675
| Cal. Ct. App. | Oct 6, 2016Background
- Four-year-old Sheila was taken into protective custody by Modesto police after finding her wandering outside her home; officers left Sheila at the station while Amanda (her 26‑year‑old mother) remained inside acting delusional.
- Officers entered Amanda’s home, found her distressed and holding a knife, called for backup and an ambulance, but after a short period left Amanda alone; they did not warn family members they were leaving.
- Less than an hour after officers departed, a fire occurred at Amanda’s home; Amanda was later found unconscious and died of smoke/chemical inhalation; the complaint alleges she probably started the fire while delusional.
- Plaintiff (guardian ad litem for Sheila) sued the City and three officers for wrongful death, alleging a special‑relationship duty (by custodial acts and/or representations) and failure to warn family members.
- Trial court sustained a demurrer without leave to amend, holding plaintiff failed to plead facts establishing a special relationship; plaintiff appealed and, on appeal, proposed a more specific amendment allegedly showing Officer Heilman told Amanda’s sister (Nicole) not to try to intervene and that police would take Amanda to behavioral health or jail.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether officers owed a duty via a special relationship | Sheila: officers created a special relationship by taking custody of the child and/or by making representations to Nicole that induced reliance | Defendants: no special relationship existed; officers owed no duty to public members absent creating peril or specific promise | Court: plaintiff may plead a special‑relationship based on detrimental reliance from an officer’s representations; existing complaint lacked particularity but proposed amendment cures defects |
| Pleading particularity and leave to amend | Sheila: can amend on appeal (Code Civ. Proc. §472c) to allege Officer Heilman told Nicole not to go and that police would take Amanda to behavioral health or jail | Defendants: proposed amendment contradicts earlier complaint and was not presented below | Held: proposed facts do not contradict prior allegations and are sufficiently particular to permit amendment |
| Foreseeability of harm from abandoning Amanda | Sheila: Amanda’s bipolar disorder (treated with Prozac), vomiting, delusions, and Nicole’s inquiry made Amanda’s risk of self‑harm foreseeable | Defendants: no specific threat of self‑harm; death by fire was not foreseeable | Held: foreseeable peril can be shown without an explicit suicide threat; alleged facts support foreseeability that Amanda posed a danger to herself |
| Whether statutory immunities bar a duty to warn | Sheila: duty to warn family of withdrawal of police protection lies outside the asserted immunities | Defendants: various Government Code immunities shield officers (discretionary acts, failure to provide protection, failures re: mental health) | Held: immunities asserted do not extend to a duty to warn family members; immunity does not defeat leave to amend |
Key Cases Cited
- Williams v. State of California, 34 Cal.3d 18 (1983) (general rule: law enforcement owes no duty to protect public absent special relationship or created peril)
- Morgan v. County of Yuba, 230 Cal.App.2d 938 (1964) (special relationship where deputy promised to warn and failed to do so)
- McCorkle v. City of Los Angeles, 70 Cal.2d 252 (1969) (special relationship where officer’s affirmative act increased plaintiff’s risk)
- Clemente v. State of California, 40 Cal.3d 202 (1985) (duty may arise where patrolman’s conduct creates dependency and detrimental reliance)
- Glaski v. Bank of America, 218 Cal.App.4th 1079 (2013) (to plead detrimental reliance plaintiff must identify actions taken or not taken because of reliance)
- Lopez v. Southern Cal. Rapid Transit Dist., 40 Cal.3d 780 (1985) (negligence claims against public entities/employees require particularity in pleading)