Background

• Hayes was shot and killed by San Diego County Sheriff's Deputies during a welfare check on Sept. 17, 2006; Chelsey Hayes, through her guardian Ad Litem, sues the deputies and county for wrongful death and related claims; the certified issue concerns preshooting conduct and duty of care toward a suicidal person; district court granted summary judgment rejecting any duty based on California authorities; California Supreme Court had not settled whether preshooting conduct can give rise to negligence; Hernandez v. City of Pomona later suggested the high court might diverge from Adams and Munoz on duty, influencing this appeal; Ninth Circuit certified the question to determine California law on whether deputies owe a duty during welfare checks for suicidal individuals; the case was stayed and the prior opinion withdrawn pending California Supreme Court decision.

Issues

Key Cases Cited

• Adams v. City of Fremont, 68 Cal.App.4th 243 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998) (no duty to take steps to prevent threatened suicide; policy favors shielding officers from liability)
• Munoz v. City of Union City, 120 Cal.App.4th 1077 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004) (no preshooting duty; public safety interests outweigh liability)
• Hernandez v. City of Pomona, 46 Cal.4th 501 (Cal. 2009) (collateral estoppel in federal wrongful death; discusses preshooting duty without definitive rule)
• Rowland v. Christian, 69 Cal.2d 108 (Cal. 1968) (public policy factors in determining tort duty)
• Westlands Water Dist. v. Amoco Chemical Co., 953 F.2d 1109 (9th Cir. 1991) (predicting state law when state high court hasn’t decided)
• Estrella v. Brandt, 682 F.2d 814 (9th Cir. 1982) (datum for ascertaining state law; intermediate decisions persuasive)
• Katz v. Children’s Hosp., 28 F.3d 1520 (9th Cir. 1994) (court cautions about relying on state decisions; highest court may decide differently)