County of Sacramento v. Super. Ct. 9/4/12 CA3

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » California » 3rd Appellate District » 2012 » County of Sacramento v. Super. Ct. 9/4/12 CA3

State: California

Court: California Eastern District Court

Docket No: C069483

Case Date: 09/26/2012

Plaintiff: County of Sacramento

Defendant: Super. Ct. 9/4/12 CA3

Preview:Filed 9/4/12; pub. order 9/26/12 (see end of opn.)

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ----

COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, C069483 Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SACRAMENTO COUNTY, Respondent; TUMBUR PURBA et al., Real Parties in Interest. (Super. Ct. No. 34-200900056873-CU-PO-GDS)

Petitioner County of Sacramento (the County) unsuccessfully moved for summary judgment in this tort action, which is premised on the alleged failure of the Sacramento County Public Conservator (the conservator) to warn a care facility adequately about a conservatee's history of violence. After placement at

the facility, the conservatee injured one employee and killed another (Tumbur Purba and his wife, decedent Pausta Sibarani). The County had asserted, inter alia, that its agency was immune

1

from suit under Welfare and Institutions Code section 5358.11 and consequently it did not have any derivative liability. The

trial court, after finding the existence of a duty to warn adequately, ruled that "the immunity is not so broad" because "there is a duty that in essence super[s]edes the immunity . . . where someone is a real problem and dangerous to the public . . . ." The County filed a petition in this court for a writ of mandate directing the trial court to set aside its order and issue a new one granting summary judgment on the basis of this statutory immunity. We issued an alternative writ, to which

real parties in interest (Tumbur Purba and the children of the couple, to whom we will refer in the singular as "real party") have filed a return. absolute immunity. We agree section 5358.1 affords an We will therefore issue a peremptory writ

directing the trial court to vacate its order and issue a new one granting the County's motion for summary judgment. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Standard of Review Under the "historic paradigm" for our de novo review of a motion for summary judgment (Rio Linda Unified School Dist. v. Superior Court (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 732, 734-735), we first identify the material issues framed in the pleadings. We then

ordinarily determine whether a defendant's evidence establishes
1

Undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code. 2

prima facie entitlement to judgment in the defendant's favor on these issues, after which we consider whether the opponent's evidence creates a factual conflict with respect to any of these issues that only a trier of fact can resolve. (Ibid.) In the

present case, however, we can omit the latter two steps because the dispute involves only the legal significance of the material facts and not the existence of any disputes about them. Pleadings The real party filed an amended complaint in January 2010. The pleading asserted causes of action for the wrongful death of decedent Sibarani, a survivor action for negligence, and the real party's cause of action for negligence under both the theory of being a direct victim of negligence and of being a percipient family member witness of personal injuries to the decedent (e.g., Newton v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals (1986) 184 Cal.App.3d 386, 389-390 [discussing both theories]). The

pleading asserted that the County was vicariously liable for the acts of negligence of its agents and representatives. Code,

Download C069483.PDF