BONNIE v. CITY OF POMONA
Filed 4/11/06
CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION SEVEN
| BONNIE HERNANDEZ, as Co-administrator, etc., et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. CITY OF POMONA et al., Defendants and Respondents. | B182437 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC228397) |
Continue from Part I…………..
| III. | THE DOCTRINES OF RES JUDICATA AND COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL DO NOT BAR PLAINTIFFS' NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE CITY OF POMONA. |
For reasons similar to those explained in Parts I and II we hold res judicata and collateral estoppel do not bar plaintiffs' negligence cause of action against the City of Pomona.
The doctrine of respondeat superior does not apply to an action brought under section 1983.[1] In order to establish a municipality's liability the plaintiff must establish a constitutional violation by the municipality itself, for example a departmental regulation authorizing the use of constitutionally unreasonable force.[2] On the other hand, even if the evidence establishes a constitutional violation by the municipality, such as a regulation authorizing the use of constitutionally unreasonable force, the municipality will not be liable for damages unless the jury finds a municipal officer actually inflicted constitutionally unreasonable harm on the plaintiff.[3]
Under California law, however, municipalities are liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior for the negligent acts of municipal employees.[4] Municipalities are only immune from liability if their employees would be immune.[5] Police officers who use excessive force are not immune from liability under California law.[6]
We cannot determine from the federal jury's general verdict in favor of the city whether the jury found the city did not authorize excessive use of force or whether it
found the city authorized excessive use of force but excessive force was not used in this case.
We can say, however, the officers' negligence was not an issue before the jury in the federal trial for the reasons discussed in Part II above, thus neither was the city's immunity under the California Government Code.
For these reasons the trial court erred in sustaining the demurrer of the City of Pomona.
| IV. | THE DOCTRINES OF RES JUDICATA AND COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL DO NOT BAR PLAINTIFFS' NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST OFFICER SANCHEZ. |
After the federal jury failed to reach a verdict as to Officer Sanchez the district court, without hearing oral argument, granted his motion for judgment under Rule 50, subdivision (a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.[7] In doing so it concluded as a matter of law â€
