Hernandez v. Southern California Rapid Transit Dist.
Citation | 142 Cal.App.3d 1063,191 Cal.Rptr. 436 |
Court | California Court of Appeals |
Decision Date | 17 May 1983 |
Parties | Lorenza HERNANDEZ, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA RAPID TRANSIT DISTRICT, Defendant and Respondent. Civ. 66255. |
Kessler & Drasin and Gary Kessler, Los Angeles, for plaintiff and appellant.
Leach & Schneider and James T. Biesty, Los Angeles, for defendant and respondent.
Lorenza Hernandez appeals from the trial court's August 19, 1981, order dismissing this action as to respondent Southern California Rapid Transit District. (Code Civ.Proc., § 581, subd. (3).) Said order of dismissal was filed after respondent's demurrer to appellant's complaint was sustained without leave to amend.
Appellant contends (1) that she properly pled a cause of action for negligence against respondent and (2) that respondent is not immune from liability under Government Code section 820.2, 820.8, or 845.
On April 17, 1981, appellant filed a complaint for wrongful death against respondent, Hector Holguin, and certain Does alleging 1 that her son, John Placentia, was killed on August 22, 1980, by Holguin who was riding as a paying passenger on a bus that was owned and operated by respondent Southern California Rapid Transit District (hereafter SCRTD).
In the first cause of action of her complaint, appellant alleged that after entering said bus and:
that defendants and each of them knew, or should have known, that the number of violent crimes on Southern California Rapid Transit District buses were increasing and was the cause of increased injuries and harm to SCRTD bus drivers and passengers; and further that defendants, and each of them, knew or should have known that buses traveling the route or line on which decedent was shot and killed were known to be targets of criminal violence against bus drivers and passengers; and further that defendants, and each of them knew or should have known that dangerous or deadly weapons would be carried onto said bus by paying passengers thereby greatly increasing the likelihood of acts of violence in buses; and further that defendants, and each of them, knew or should have known that the arguing and the loud, boisterous and unruly conduct between defendant HOLGUIN and decedent would result in harm to someone on said bus; and further that defendants and each of them knew or should have known, that security on said bus and within said bus system was inadequate to protect persons on said buses.
"As a proximate result of said negligence of defendants and each of them, decedent died on August 22, 1980."
In her second cause of action appellant incorporated by reference the first cause of action and alleged, among other things, that respondent violated Civil Code section 2100 which establishes the general duty of care owed by common carriers to their passengers. It provides: "A carrier of persons for reward must use the utmost care and diligence for their safe carriage, must provide everything necessary for that purpose, and must exercise to that end a reasonable degree of skill."
Respondent demurred to appellant's complaint on the grounds (1) that it failed to state a cause of action upon which relief could be granted, (2) that respondent did not owe appellant a duty of care, and (3) that respondent is immune from liability under Government Code sections 815.2, 820.2, 820.8 and 845. (Code Civ.Proc., § 430.10.)
On August 19, 1981, respondent's demurrer was sustained without leave to amend, the court having found respondent immune from liability under Government Code section 845. The order dismissing respondent from this action was filed the same day, and this appeal followed.
The liability of public entities is governed by the California Tort Claims Act (Gov.Code, § 810 et seq.). The statutory provisions of the act establish immunity from liability for certain acts or omissions of a public entity or its employees. (See Gov.Code, § 815.) 2
Government Code section 845 immunizes public entities, such as respondent, 3 from liability for failure to provide police protection. 4 It provides: "Neither a public entity nor a public employee is liable for failure to establish a police department or otherwise provide police protection service or, if police protection is provided, for failure to provide sufficient police protection service."
"Since all California governmental tort liability flows from the California Tort Claims Act [citations], the plaintiff must plead facts sufficient to show his cause of action lies outside the breadth of any applicable statutory immunity." (Keyes v. Santa Clara Valley Water Dist. (1982) 128 Cal.App.3d 882, 885-886, 180 Cal.Rptr. 586.) This appellant did not do.
Appellant's basic allegation that the damages she suffered from the death of her son were proximately caused by respondent's breach of its duty to provide its passengers with adequate police protection is insufficient. In the absence of a "special relationship," Government Code section 845 immunizes respondent for its failure to do so. Where, however, there exists a "special relationship" between the public entity and plaintiff, liability may be imposed irrespective of any grant of immunity set forth in Government Code section 845. (Hartzler v. City of San...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Lopez v. Southern Cal. Rapid Transit Dist.
...and members of the general public. In contrast to a police officer's RTD relies heavily on Hernandez v. Southern California Rapid Transit Dist. (1983) 142 Cal.App.3d 1063, 191 Cal.Rptr. 436, to support its assertion that no special relationship exists between RTD and its passengers. In Hern......
-
Lopez v. Southern California Rapid Transit Dist.
...has held no special relationship exists between a common carrier and its passengers. (Hernandez v. Southern California Rapid Transit District (1983) 142 Cal.App.3d 1063, 1067, 191 Cal.Rptr. 436.) In that case plaintiff brought an action for wrongful death against the RTD alleging that her s......
-
Adams v. City of Fremont
...Cal.Rptr. 500; Hartzler v. City of San Jose, supra, 46 Cal.App.3d 6, 9-10, 120 Cal.Rptr. 5; Hernandez v. Southern California Rapid Transit Dist. (1983) 142 Cal.App.3d 1063, 1067, 191 Cal.Rptr. 436; see, Lopez v. Southern California Rapid Transit Dist., supra, 40 Cal.3d 780, 792-793, 221 Cal......
-
Gates v. Superior Court
...dangerous and negligently maintained rest stop during nighttime hours citing section 845. In Hernandez v. Southern California Rapid Transit Dist. (1983) 142 Cal.App.3d 1063, 1067, 191 Cal.Rptr. 436, Division Four of this appellate district concluded that the section 845 immunity applied to ......