24 Cal. App. 5th 185
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2018Background
- A Trinity County deputy (Corporal Whitman) called neighbors James and Norma Gund and asked them to check on a nearby resident (K.) who had phoned 911. Whitman told them the 911 call was likely weather-related and "probably no big deal."
- The 911 call actually involved a whispered plea for help; CHP and the county dispatcher had concerns and could not reach the caller on a return call. Whitman did not disclose those facts to the Gunds.
- Relying on Whitman, the Gunds went to K.'s house, unknowingly entered an active crime scene, and were brutally attacked by the apparent murderer; the attacker fled.
- The Gunds sued Trinity County and Whitman for negligence and misrepresentation. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing Labor Code § 3366 makes the Gunds' exclusive remedy workers' compensation because they were assisting in "active law enforcement."
- The trial court granted summary judgment for defendants. On appeal the court considered whether responding to an uncertain 911 call at a deputy's request constitutes "active law enforcement" under § 3366 even when the deputy allegedly misled the civilians.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether persons who, at a deputy's request, check on a 911 caller are "engaged in assisting any peace officer in active law enforcement service" under Labor Code § 3366 | Gunds: Objective and subjective standards show they were not engaging in active law enforcement because Whitman misrepresented the call as weather-related and they did not perceive themselves as performing law enforcement | County/Whitman: Any response to a 911 call is active law enforcement; plaintiffs were assisting a peace officer and thus covered by § 3366 | Held: § 3366 applies — responding to an uncertain 911 call at the deputy's request is assisting in active law enforcement; workers' compensation is plaintiffs' exclusive remedy |
| Whether the deputy's misrepresentations/omissions prevent application of § 3366 | Gunds: Misrepresentations created factual disputes about whether plaintiffs were "assisting" in active law enforcement and preclude summary judgment | Defendants: Misrepresentations are immaterial; the operative fact is plaintiffs were responding to a 911 call | Held: Misrepresentations and plaintiffs' subjective belief are irrelevant to statutory construction; knowledge they were responding to a 911 call suffices for § 3366 coverage |
| Whether Trinity County Resolution No. 163-87 (declaring volunteers employees for WC) applies to make plaintiffs employees | Gunds: Not principally argued on appeal | County: Resolution deems volunteers employees for WC under § 3363.5 | Held: Court did not need to reach alternate theories like the County resolution because § 3366 dispositively applied |
| Whether other defenses (posse comitatus, governmental immunity) affect outcome | Gunds: Not persuasive on appeal | County: Alternative defenses asserted on appeal | Held: Court affirmed on § 3366 ground and expressly declined to decide alternate defenses |
Key Cases Cited
- McCorkle v. City of Los Angeles, 70 Cal.2d 252 (Cal. 1969) (section 3366 intended to cover persons who assume functions and risks of peace officers)
- County of Monterey v. Industrial Acc. Comm'n, 199 Cal. 221 (Cal. 1926) (posse comitatus principles; person impressed into law enforcement may be deemed employee)
- Department of Natural Resources v. Industrial Acc. Comm'n, 208 Cal. 14 (Cal. 1929) (limitations on WC coverage where volunteer status and lack of compensation are relevant)
- City of Long Beach v. Industrial Acc. Comm'n, 4 Cal.2d 624 (Cal. 1935) (distinguishing volunteer assistance and WC coverage)
- Biggers v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Bd., 69 Cal.App.4th 431 (Cal. Ct. App. 1999) (discussing scope of "active law enforcement" and liberal construction of WC statutes)