201 Cal. App. 4th 1439
Cal. Ct. App.2011Background
- Strong was injured in a May 15, 2006, motorcycle collision with an unidentified driver; the other driver's identity information was lost by CHP Officer Swanberg.
- Strong asked Swanberg at the scene for the other driver's identity; Swanberg promised it would appear in the traffic collision report, which Strong relied upon.
- CHP conducted an internal investigation; Swanberg’s report initially faulted Strong, and he amended the report after CHP admonished him for improper investigation.
- Strong sustained serious injuries, incurred medical expenses and could not obtain the second driver’s identity to pursue recovery against that driver.
- Strong sued the State, CHP and Swanberg; Swanberg was later dismissed; case proceeded in a bench trial on stipulated facts with trial evidence.
- The trial court found a special relationship and a mandatory duty under 815.6, rejected spoliation immunity, awarded damages, and held 50/50 fault with apportionment reduction for mitigation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Duty under 815.6 | Strong asserts mandatory duty via CHP forms/manuals create 815.6 duty. | State contends no legally enforceable duty from manuals not formally adopted. | No duty from manuals; duty may arise from special relationship. |
| Special relationship | Strong relied on Swanberg’s promise to provide second driver’s identity, creating a special relationship. | State disputes existence of special relationship under facts. | Special relationship formed; Swanberg owed duty to collect/retain information. |
| Spoliation of evidence | Loss of identifying information constitutes breach of duty; may be spoliation. | Legality of spoliation damages under tort theories is limited; spoliation not recoverable as a private tort. | Remains unresolved due to immunity; opinion discusses spoliation but upholds immunity. |
| Governmental immunity under 821.6 | Investigation-related conduct could override immunity if beyond prosecutorial scope. | 821.6 immunizes public employees for instituting or prosecuting proceedings within scope of employment. | Officer Swanberg immune; State immune under 821.6; judgment reversed in State’s favor. |
Key Cases Cited
- Clemente II, 40 Cal.3d 202 (Cal. Sup. Ct. 1985) (discusses applicability of evidentiary manuals and duty considerations)
- Williams v. State of California, 34 Cal.3d 18 (Cal. Sup. Ct. 1983) (limits special relationship duties arising from aid to motorists)
- Temple Community Hospital v. Superior Court, 20 Cal.4th 464 (Cal. Sup. Ct. 1999) (no tort remedy for intentional third-party spoliation; informs spoliation limits)
- Cedars-Sinai Medical Center v. Superior Court, 18 Cal.4th 1 (Cal. Sup. Ct. 1998) (no tort remedy for intentional spoliation by a party to action)
- Lueter v. State of California, 94 Cal.App.4th 1285 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002) (no tort for negligent spoliation; spoliation remedies created by statute)
- Clemente I, 101 Cal.App.3d 374 (Cal. Ct. App. 1980) (initial discussion of special relationship in an accident investigation)
- Patteron v. City of Los Angeles, 174 Cal.App.4th 1393 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) (investigations deemed part of judicial/administrative proceedings for immunity purposes)
- Amylou R. v. County of Riverside, 28 Cal.App.4th 1205 (Cal. Ct. App. 1994) (investigations immunities integration in public entity liability)