Quigley v. Garden Valley Fire Protection Dist.
249 Cal. Rptr. 3d 548
| Cal. | 2019Background
- Plaintiff Rebecca Quigley, a U.S. Forest Service firefighter, was run over and severely injured at a firefighting base camp where she was sleeping; she sued local fire district employees and their districts for negligence under Gov. Code § 835 (dangerous condition of public property).
- Defendants answered with numerous affirmative defenses and one omnibus defense asserting all rights under the Government Claims Act (Gov. Code §§ 810–996.6), but did not specifically cite Gov. Code § 850.4 (immunity for injuries "resulting from the condition of fire protection or firefighting equipment or facilities").
- At trial defendants moved for nonsuit after opening statements, invoking § 850.4 for the first time; the trial court overruled Quigley’s waiver objection and granted nonsuit on § 850.4 grounds.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding § 850.4 is "jurisdictional" and thus may be raised at any time; it disagreed with precedent (McMahan’s) that treated § 850.4 as an affirmative defense.
- The Supreme Court granted review to decide whether § 850.4 is a jurisdictional bar (incapable of waiver) or an affirmative defense subject to forfeiture, and whether defendants’ omnibus GCA pleading preserved the defense.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Gov. Code § 850.4 immunity deprives courts of fundamental subject-matter jurisdiction or is an affirmative defense | Quigley: § 850.4 is an affirmative defense that must be pleaded and can be waived/forfeited if not timely raised | Defendants: § 850.4 is jurisdictional (rooted in sovereign immunity) and may be raised at any time, even after judgment | Held: § 850.4 is an affirmative defense limiting substantive liability, not a deprivation of fundamental court jurisdiction; it can be forfeited if not adequately pleaded or timely raised |
| Whether a general omnibus pleading asserting all defenses under the Government Claims Act sufficiently preserved § 850.4 | Quigley: omnibus citation to the entire Act failed to give fair notice of reliance on any particular immunity, including § 850.4 | Defendants: citation to Gov. Code §§ 810–996.6 in their 15th affirmative defense preserved all GCA immunities, including § 850.4 | Held: Supreme Court remanded for the Court of Appeal to decide in the first instance whether the omnibus pleading satisfied pleading/notice rules and, if not, whether the trial court should exercise discretion to allow late assertion of the defense |
| Effect of historical/precedential characterizations of governmental immunity as "jurisdictional" | Quigley: historical labels do not control; statutes that bar liability do not necessarily withdraw court jurisdiction absent clear legislative intent | Defendants: GCA reestablished governmental immunity and thus immunities function as jurisdictional bars | Held: historical context shows GCA addressed substantive liability and separately waived procedural immunity to suit; absent clear legislative intent, statutory immunities under the GCA are not treated as stripping courts of core subject-matter jurisdiction |
| Whether prior appellate decisions holding GCA immunities "jurisdictional" are controlling | Quigley: many appellate decisions conflated lack of fundamental jurisdiction with acts in excess of jurisdiction and are incorrect to the extent they treat GCA immunities as non-waivable jurisdictional defects | Defendants: rely on those appellate decisions (e.g., Hata, Paterson) | Held: Supreme Court disapproved those decisions to the extent they treat statutory GCA immunities as depriving courts of fundamental jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Muskopf v. Corning Hosp. Dist., 55 Cal.2d 211 (Cal. 1961) (abolished common-law governmental immunity and framed legislative response leading to the GCA)
- Teall v. City of Cudahy, 60 Cal.2d 431 (Cal. 1963) (design immunity under GCA is a defense that should be pleaded)
- Heieck & Moran v. City of Modesto, 64 Cal.2d 229 (Cal. 1966) (legislative commentary on purposes of § 850.4)
- De La Rosa v. City of San Bernardino, 16 Cal.App.3d 739 (Cal. Ct. App. 1971) (design immunity as a qualified, pleaded immunity)
- Hata v. Los Angeles County Harbor/UCLA Med. Ctr., 31 Cal.App.4th 1791 (Cal. Ct. App. 1995) (treated certain statutory immunities as "jurisdictional"; Court disapproved to extent inconsistent with this opinion)
- Kabran v. Sharp Mem. Hosp., 2 Cal.5th 330 (Cal. 2017) (distinction between fundamental jurisdiction and acts in excess of jurisdiction)
- State of California v. Superior Court (Rodenhuis), 263 Cal.App.2d 396 (Cal. Ct. App. 1968) (early post‑GCA case treating sovereign immunity as a basis for prohibition; Court here explains Rodenhuis did not decide fundamental-jurisdiction issue)
- Metcalf v. County of San Joaquin, 42 Cal.4th 1121 (Cal. 2008) (section 835.4 creates an affirmative defense)
- People v. Superior Court (Pierpont), 29 Cal.2d 754 (Cal. 1947) (pre‑Muskopf characterization of sovereign immunity as jurisdictional writ basis; discussed in historical analysis)