Young Han v. City of Folsom
695 F. App'x 197
9th Cir.2017Background
- Plaintiffs (Young, Nam, and David Han) sued the City of Folsom and officers after police shot and killed Joseph Han; claims included wrongful death and negligent infliction of emotional distress under California law.
- The district court initially granted summary judgment for the City on federal and state claims; Ninth Circuit affirmed dismissal of federal claims but remanded state claims after Hayes v. County of San Diego.
- On remand the district court again granted summary judgment to the City on the state-law claims; this appeal followed.
- Under California law, public employees and entities can be liable for negligence, and peace officers have a duty to act reasonably when using deadly force, judged by the totality of circumstances.
- Plaintiffs produced expert testimony that officers failed to follow generally accepted police practices, escalated the encounter, did not employ appropriate tactics for a person of diminished capacity, and that disputed factual issues exist (e.g., door open/closed, warnings, sighting of the knife, victim’s position).
- The panel conducted de novo review of the full record and concluded genuine disputes of material fact existed, making summary judgment inappropriate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether officers owed a duty of care such that negligence claims can proceed | Han: California law imposes a duty; officers must act reasonably under totality of circumstances | City: Officers owed no actionable duty here, so negligence fails | Duty exists under California law; officers’ preshooting conduct and tactics are relevant to negligence analysis |
| Whether pre-shooting tactical decisions are admissible/relevant to negligence | Han: Tactical and preshooting conduct are relevant and may show breach of duty | City: (Implicit) Limit focus to the shooting itself or prior panel’s facts | Court: Hayes requires considering preshooting conduct and totality of circumstances in negligence claims involving deadly force |
| Whether summary judgment was appropriate given the record | Han: Expert evidence and disputed facts create triable issues (tactics, warnings, sight of knife, door status, position) | City: Summary judgment warranted; record insufficient to raise triable issues | Reversed: genuine disputes and expert opinions preclude summary judgment; credibility and inferences are for jury |
Key Cases Cited
- Hayes v. County of San Diego, 305 P.3d 252 (Cal. 2013) (officers’ preshooting tactical conduct is relevant to negligence when deadly force is used)
- Grudt v. City of Los Angeles, 468 P.2d 825 (Cal. 1970) (police conduct must be gauged against all material circumstances; tactical manuals may be evidence of standard of care)
- Toschi v. Christian, 149 P.2d 848 (Cal. 1944) (fact questions decide whether conduct falls within ordinary care)
- County of Mariposa v. Yosemite W. Assocs., 202 Cal.App.3d 791 (Ct. App. 1988) (industry practitioners can establish standard of care)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (credibility and weight of evidence are jury functions at summary judgment analysis)
- Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Tech. Servs., Inc., 504 U.S. 451 (1992) (appellate courts may review summary judgment de novo and examine the full record)