Gund v. Cnty. of Trinity

Decision Date27 August 2020
Docket NumberS249792
Parties James GUND et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. COUNTY OF TRINITY et al., Defendants and Respondents.
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

Zwerdling, Bragg & Mainzer, Bragg, Mainzer & Firpo and Benjamin H. Mainzer, Eureka, for Plaintiffs and Appellants.

Porter Scott and John R. Whitefleet, Sacramento, for Defendants and Respondents.

Arthur J. Wylene for Rural County Representatives of California and League of California Cities as Amici Curiae on behalf of Defendants and Respondents.

Opinion of the Court by Cuéllar, J.

We entrust to police officers the enormous responsibility of ensuring public safety with integrity and appropriate restraint, a mission they sometimes pursue by requesting help from the very public they're sworn to protect. When members of the public engage in "active law enforcement service" at a peace officer's request, California law treats those members of the public as employees eligible for workers’ compensation benefits. ( Lab. Code, § 3366, subd. (a).)1 While this allows such individuals to receive compensation for their injuries without regard to fault, it comes with a catch: Workers’ compensation then becomes an individual's exclusive remedy for those injuries under state law. (§ 3602, subd. (a); Shoemaker v. Myers (1990) 52 Cal.3d 1, 16, 276 Cal.Rptr. 303, 801 P.2d 1054 ( Shoemaker ).) That can make a difference for some members of the public who answer a peace officer's call to help with "active law enforcement," because workers’ compensation benefits are narrower in scope than the menu of damages available in tort claims. Whether compensation for a member of the public injured in the course of responding to a request for assistance from law enforcement is limited to workers’ compensation, or whether civil damages are available, depends on the question at the heart of this case: What does it mean for an individual to engage in "active law enforcement service"?

Norma and James Gund received a call from Trinity County Sheriff's Corporal Ronald Whitman, who asked them to assist law enforcement by checking on a neighbor who had called 911 requesting help. When the Gunds did so, they walked into an active murder scene and suffered a violent attack. What we must resolve is whether Mr. and Mrs. Gund engaged in active law enforcement service and are limited to workers’ compensation benefits for their injuries based on Corporal Whitman's request for assistance, which they allege misrepresented the potential danger.

We conclude the Gunds were indeed engaged in "active law enforcement service." When the Gunds provided the requested assistance, they delivered an active response to the 911 call of a local resident pleading for help. A response of this kind unquestionably falls within the scope of a police officer's law enforcement duties. Whether or not any alleged omissions in Corporal Whitman's request could conceivably prove relevant to legal actions alleging malfeasance, they do not change our conclusion about the scope of workers’ compensation in this tragic case. We affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeal.

I.

On the afternoon of March 13, 2011, the California Highway Patrol (CHP) received a phone call from Kristine, a female caller.2 Kristine whispered, "Help me," and said she lived at end of the Kettenpom airstrip. Kettenpom is situated in the southwest corner of Trinity County, a mountainous expanse of 3,200 square miles. (Trinity County, About Trinity County [as of Aug. 24, 2020].)3 The County is inhabited by fewer than 15,000 people. (U.S. Census Bureau, Population of Trinity County, California: Census 2010 and 2000 Interactive Map, Demographics, Statistics, Graphs, Quick Facts [as of Aug. 24, 2020].) The CHP dispatcher relayed the content of Kristine's call to the Trinity County Sheriff's Department. The Sheriff's Department is in Weaverville, almost 100 miles away from Kettenpom. (Trinity County, California, Sheriff Department [as of Aug. 24, 2020].) The CHP dispatcher explained she was hesitant to call Kristine back in case she was trying to avoid being overheard. Twice, a Trinity County dispatcher nonetheless attempted to contact Kristine, but the calls went straight to voicemail. The county dispatcher relayed this information to Trinity County Sheriff's Corporal Ronald Whitman.

Corporal Whitman knew the Gunds lived in the vicinity of the Kettenpom airstrip. En route to Kristine's home but still some distance away, he called Norma Gund and explained that her neighbor, Kristine, had called 911. He asked Mrs. Gund if she would go check on Kristine, as they were much closer to Kristine's home and he was still hours away. After Mrs. Gund agreed, Corporal Whitman asked if Mr. Gund was home, and Mrs. Gund said no. He instructed Mrs. Gund not to go to Kristine's home by herself. Mrs. Gund asked what Kristine said on the call, and Corporal Whitman responded that she said, "Help me." Mrs. Gund then inquired: "Are you sure? Is that all she said?" Corporal Whitman responded, "She said two words, ‘Help me.’ " Mrs. Gund told Corporal Whitman that Mr. Gund had just arrived home, and Corporal Whitman said, "Good." Corporal Whitman did not tell Mrs. Gund that Kristine had whispered on the phone, that the CHP dispatcher believed she had been trying to call secretly, or that the county dispatcher's return calls to Kristine went straight to voicemail.

Mrs. Gund confirmed for Corporal Whitman that she'd been to Kristine's property before, to help the previous owner with snow and fallen trees. Corporal Whitman mentioned the impending arrival of a major storm, which "must be what this is all about."

"It's probably no big deal," he continued. Corporal Whitman then asked if Mrs. Gund had ever met Kristine's boyfriend and if he seemed violent. Mrs. Gund confirmed that she had met Kristine's boyfriend. In response to whether he ever seemed violent, Mrs. Gund indicated she "didn't know. He seemed real mellow." Corporal Whitman gave Mrs. Gund his cell phone number and instructed her to call him as soon as she and her husband had checked on Kristine. Believing the emergency to be weather related, the Gunds drove to Kristine's home. They speculated that maybe a tree had fallen or that Kristine, a young city girl, was having trouble with her wood burning stove.

After arriving at Kristine's home, Mrs. Gund went in first, while Mr. Gund stayed in the truck. Immediately after entering Kristine's home, Mrs. Gund was attacked by the man who had just murdered Kristine and her boyfriend. Mr. Gund, hearing some of the commotion, entered the home and saw the man holding down his wife and cutting her throat with a knife. The man then attacked Mr. Gund, as well — tasing him, punching him, and cutting his throat. During the attack, Mr. Gund saw on the floor a motionless body with a bag over the head. Mrs. Gund escaped to the truck and drove to a nearby store for help. Mr. Gund managed to disarm the attacker and flee on foot to his home. He got another vehicle and reunited with Mrs. Gund at the store.

The Gunds filed this action against Trinity County (the County) and Corporal Whitman. The First Amended Complaint alleges causes of action for: liability for the act or omission of a public employee; vicarious liability for the act or omission of a public employee; misrepresentation by a public employee, with actual malice; and vicarious liability for misrepresentation by a public employee, with actual malice. The Gunds contend Corporal Whitman sought to secure their assistance by falsely assuring them that Kristine's call was probably weather related and knowingly withholding the following facts: Kristine whispered, the CHP dispatcher thought Kristine was calling secretly, and the county dispatcher's return calls went straight to voicemail.

The County and Corporal Whitman moved for summary judgment. Workers’ compensation, they argued, was the Gunds’ exclusive remedy because they sustained their injuries while engaged in active law enforcement service under section 3366.4 The Gunds argued that section 3366 did not apply because, given Corporal Whitman's alleged misrepresentations, they did not understand themselves to be engaged in "active law enforcement service" when they complied with his request, nor would a reasonable person have understood this to qualify under that standard.

The trial court granted the summary judgment motion. Despite the Gunds’ contention that they relied on Corporal Whitman's alleged misrepresentations, the trial court found that section 3366 applied because a response to a 911 call under the circumstances in this case amounts to assisting a peace officer in active law enforcement. The Gunds appealed. Although the Court of Appeal agreed that the Gunds provided active law enforcement service at Corporal Whitman's request, it noted the trial court's failure to acknowledge factual contentions that Corporal Whitman misled them about the nature of the requested activity. The Court of Appeal ultimately found the misrepresentations did not change the outcome in the trial court. The appellate court reasoned that because Corporal Whitman's direct response to Kristine's 911 call would have been considered active law enforcement, so too should the Gunds’ response on his behalf. The Court of Appeal concluded that responding to a 911 call for unspecified help — which the Gunds did here — "is clearly active law enforcement" and section 3366 applies, rendering workers’ compensation benefits the Gunds’ exclusive remedy. ( Gund v. County of Trinity (2018) 24 Cal.App.5th 185, 195, 234 Cal.Rptr.3d 187 ( Gund ).)

We ordered review on the court's own motion to decide the scope of workers’ compensation coverage available to the plaintiffs in this situation, as the availability of such coverage would constrain them in seeking other redress for their injuries. Specifically, we address whether plaintiffs engaged in active law enforcement under section 3366 after a...

To continue reading

Request your trial
33 cases
  • Busker v. Wabtec Corp.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • 16 d1 Agosto d1 2021
    ...section 1772 is precisely what we rightly expect courts to do when they interpret statutes. (See Gund v. County of Trinity (2020) 10 Cal.5th 503, 511, 514 517–518, 268 Cal.Rptr.3d 119, 472 P.3d 435.) By upending decades of authority on section 1772, it would seem that it's the majority that......
  • Busker v. Wabtec Corp.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • 16 d1 Agosto d1 2021
    ...interpreting section 1772 is precisely what we rightly expect courts to do when they interpret statutes. (See Gund v. County of Trinity (2020) 10 Cal.5th 503, 511, 514 517–518, 268 Cal.Rptr.3d 119, 472 P.3d 435.) By upending decades of authority on section 1772, it would seem that it's the ......
  • Taylor v. Fin. Cas. & Sur., Inc.
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • 17 d2 Agosto d2 2021
    ...Cal.Rptr.3d 766 as the losing parties, resolving evidentiary doubts and ambiguities in their favor.’ " ( Gund v. County of Trinity (2020) 10 Cal.5th 503, 508, fn. 2, 268 Cal.Rptr.3d 119, 472 P.3d 435.)FCS, a Texas corporation, is a casualty and surety company. It writes surety bonds that gu......
  • Young v. Superior Court of Solano Cnty.
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • 26 d4 Maio d4 2022
    ...sources—such as legislative history—to assist us in discerning the relevant legislative purpose." ( Gund v. County of Trinity (2020) 10 Cal.5th 503, 511, 268 Cal.Rptr.3d 119, 472 P.3d 435.) Uncodified legislative findings may also be consulted. While legislative findings " ‘ " ‘do not confe......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
4 books & journal articles
  • Jurisdiction
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Workers' Compensation Law and Practice - Volume 1
    • 31 d4 Março d4 2022
    ...excluding the plaintiff from the status as employee allowing his civil lawsuit to go forward. See also Gund v. County of Trinity , 10 Cal.5th 503, 85 CCC 735 (SC-2020), where the California Supreme Court, in a majority decision, upheld the District Court of Appeal’s affirmation of the trial......
  • Governmental tort liability
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Causes of Action
    • 31 d4 Março d4 2022
    ...when they were injured, thus only being entitled to worker’s compensation as their exclusive remedy. Gund v. County of Trinity (2020) 10 Cal. 5th 503. The determination of whether or not an individual was acting within the scope of employment may depend upon whether his or her acts were der......
  • Chapter 2 - §13. Judicial notice
    • United States
    • Full Court Press California Guide to Criminal Evidence Chapter 2 Foundation
    • Invalid date
    ...of Trinity (3d Dist.2018) 24 Cal.App.5th 185, 199 (judicial notice taken of California Law Revision Commission report), aff'd, (2020) 10 Cal.5th 503. However, the court generally cannot take judicial notice of an unpublished decision. Hernandez v. Restoration Hardware, Inc. (2018) 4 Cal.5th......
  • Table of Cases
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Workers' Compensation Law and Practice - Volume 1
    • 31 d4 Março d4 2022
    ...§13:231 Gulow v. WCAB, 67 CCC 832 (W/D-2002), §17:83 Gumilla v. IAC, 187 C 638, 8 IAC 284 (1921), §23:105 Gund v. County of Trinity, 10 Cal.5th 503, 85 CCC 735 (SC-2020), §2:12 Gunnell v. Metrocolor Laboratories, Inc., (2001) 92 CA4th 710, 721, 66 CCC 1308 (2001), §2:210 Gurich v. WCAB, 61 ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT