Mary M. v. City of Los Angeles

• Citation: 814 P.2d 1341,285 Cal.Rptr. 99,54 Cal.3d 202
• Decision Date: 05 September 1991
• Docket Number: No. S005910,S005910
• Court: United States State Supreme Court (California)
• Parties: , 814 P.2d 1341, 60 USLW 2194 MARY M., Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, Defendant and Appellant.

Page 99

285 Cal.Rptr. 99

54 Cal.3d 202, 814 P.2d 1341, 60 USLW 2194

MARY M., Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, Defendant and Appellant.

No. S005910.

Supreme Court of California,

In Bank.

Sept. 5, 1991.

James K. Hahn, City Atty., John T. Neville and Richard M. Helgeson, Asst. City Attys., Katherine J. Hamilton and Greg Wolff, Deputy City Attys., Los Angeles, for defendant and appellant.

Slater & Slater, Vann H. Slater and S.K. Khalsa, Beverly Hills, for plaintiff and respondent.

KENNARD, Justice.

Police officers occupy a unique position of trust in our society. They are responsible for enforcing the law and protecting society from criminal acts. They are given the authority to detain and to arrest and, when necessary, to use deadly force. As visible symbols of that formidable power, an officer is furnished a distinctively marked car, a uniform, a badge, and a gun. Those who challenge an officer's actions do so at their peril; anyone who resists an officer's proper exercise of authority or who obstructs the performance of an officer's duties is subject to criminal prosecution. (Pen.Code, §§ 69, 148.)

When law enforcement officers abuse their authority by committing crimes against members of the community, they violate the public trust. This may seriously damage the relationship between the community and its sworn protectors, by eroding the community's confidence in the integrity of its police force.

The issue in this case is: When a police officer on duty, by misusing his official authority, rapes a woman whom he has detained, can the public entity that employs him be held vicariously liable for his misconduct? We conclude that the employer can be held liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior.

I. FACTS

About 2:30 a.m. on October 3, 1981, plaintiff Mary M. was driving home alone when Sergeant Leigh Schroyer of the Los Angeles Police Department stopped her for erratic driving. Sergeant Schroyer was on duty as a field supervisor; he was assigned to supervise and train police officers patrolling the streets. He was in uniform, wore a badge and a gun, and was driving a marked black-and-white police car. When he detained plaintiff, he sent in a radio message that he was out of his vehicle conducting an investigation.

Sergeant Schroyer asked plaintiff for her driver's license; plaintiff gave it to him. He then asked her to perform a field sobriety test to determine whether she was under the influence of alcohol. Plaintiff, who had been drinking, did not do well on the test. She began to cry, and pleaded with Schroyer not to take her to jail. Schroyer ordered her to get in the front seat of the police car, but he did not handcuff her. He then drove to plaintiff's home.

After entering the house with plaintiff, Sergeant Schroyer told her that he expected "payment" for taking her home instead of to jail. Plaintiff tried to run away, but Schroyer grabbed her hair and threw her on the couch. When plaintiff screamed, Schroyer put his hand over her mouth and threatened to take her to jail. Plaintiff stopped struggling, and Schroyer raped her. He then left the house.

From his police car, Sergeant Schroyer sent a radio message that he was returning from a "lunch" break. The radio operator questioned this, because Schroyer had previously reported that he was conducting an investigation. Schroyer did not respond to the question, and returned to the police station.

As a result of this incident, criminal charges were filed against Sergeant Schroyer, and a jury convicted him of rape (Pen.Code, § 261, subd. (a)(2)). The trial court sentenced him to state prison.

Plaintiff then brought a civil lawsuit against both Sergeant Schroyer and his employer, the City of Los Angeles (hereafter the City), for damages arising out of the rape. Plaintiff's complaint originally asserted that the City was liable for negligence in employing Schroyer and that, as Schroyer's employer, the City was also vicariously liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior. At trial, however, plaintiff relied solely on the theory of respondeat superior. The jury returned a verdict for plaintiff, finding that "at the time of the events out of which this case arose" Sergeant Schroyer was "acting within the scope of his employment with the Los Angeles Police Department." The jury assessed general damages of $150,000 against the City. ¹

A divided Court of Appeal reversed the judgment against the City. The majority held, as a matter of law, that Sergeant Schroyer was not acting within the scope of his employment when he raped plaintiff. We granted plaintiff's petition for review.

II. DISCUSSION

A. General Principles Underlying Employer's Vicarious Liability

Under the doctrine of respondeat superior, an employer may be held vicariously liable for torts committed by an employee within the scope of employment. (Perez v. Van Groningen & Sons, Inc. (1986) 41 Cal.3d 962, 967, 227 Cal.Rptr. 106, 719 P.2d 676.) The origins of respondeat superior have been traced to ancient Roman law. (5 Harper et al., The Law of Torts (2d ed. 1986) § 26.2, pp. 8-10; Holmes, Agency (1891) 4 Harv.L.Rev. 345; but see Wigmore, Responsibility for Tortious Acts: Its History (1894) 7 Harv.L.Rev. 315, 383 [stating the doctrine has Germanic, not Latin, origins].) The doctrine is a departure from the general tort principle that liability is based on fault. (Rodgers v. Kemper Constr. Co. (1975) 50 Cal.App.3d 608, 618, 124 Cal.Rptr. 143.) It is " 'a rule of policy, a deliberate allocation of a risk.' " (Hinman v. Westinghouse Elec. Co. (1970) 2 Cal.3d 956, 959, 88 Cal.Rptr. 188, 471 P.2d 988; Perez v. Van Groningen & Sons, Inc., supra, 41 Cal.3d at p. 967, 227 Cal.Rptr. 106, 719 P.2d 676.) Respondeat superior is based on " 'a deeply rooted sentiment' " that it would be unjust for an enterprise to disclaim responsibility for injuries occurring in the course of its characteristic activities. (Rodgers, supra, 50 Cal.App.3d at p. 618, 124 Cal.Rptr. 143, quoting Ira S. Bushey & Sons, Inc. v. United States (2d Cir.1968) 398 F.2d 167, 171 [per Friendly, J.]; see also Pacific Mutual Life Insurance Co. v. Haslip (1991) 499 U.S. 1, ----, 111 S.Ct. 1032, 1041, 113 L.Ed.2d 1 [rejecting due process challenge to respondeat superior liability].)

Recently, we articulated three reasons for applying the doctrine of respondeat superior: (1) to prevent recurrence of the tortious conduct; (2) to give greater assurance of compensation for the victim; and (3) to ensure that the victim's losses will be equitably borne by those who benefit from the enterprise that gave rise to the injury. (Perez v. Van Groningen & Sons, Inc., supra, 41 Cal.3d at p. 967, 227 Cal.Rptr. 106, 719 P.2d 676; 5 Harper et al., op. cit. supra, § 26.5, at p. 21.)

For the doctrine of respondeat superior to apply, the plaintiff must prove that the employee's tortious conduct was committed within the scope of employment. (Ducey v. Argo Sales Co. (1979) 25 Cal.3d 707, 721, 159 Cal.Rptr. 835, 602 P.2d 755.) "A risk arises out of the employment when 'in the context of the particular enterprise an employee's conduct is not so unusual or startling that it would seem unfair to include the loss resulting from it among other costs of the employer's business. [Citations.] In other words, where the question is one of vicarious liability, the inquiry should be whether the risk was one "that may fairly be regarded as typical of or broadly incidental" to the enterprise undertaken by the employer. [Citation.]' " (Perez v. Van Groningen & Sons, Inc., supra, 41 Cal.3d at p. 968, 227 Cal.Rptr. 106, 719 P.2d 676, citing Rodgers v. Kemper Constr. Co., supra, 50 Cal.App.3d at p. 619, 124 Cal.Rptr. 143, brackets in original.)

Tortious conduct that violates an employee's official duties or disregards the employer's express orders may nonetheless be within the scope of employment. (Perez v. Van Groningen & Sons, Inc., supra, 41 Cal.3d at p. 969, 227 Cal.Rptr. 106, 719 P.2d 676; Meyer v. Blackman (1963) 59 Cal.2d 668, 679, 31 Cal.Rptr. 36, 381 P.2d 916; Van Alstyne, Cal.Government Tort Liability Practice (Cont.Ed.Bar 1980) § 2.22, p. 62.) So may acts that do not benefit the employer (Perez, supra, 41 Cal.3d at p. 969, 227 Cal.Rptr. 106, 719 P.2d 676), or are willful or malicious in nature (John R. v. Oakland Unified School Dist. (1989) 48 Cal.3d 438, 447, 256 Cal.Rptr. 766, 769 P.2d 948; Martinez v. Hagopian (1986) 182 Cal.App.3d 1223, 1227, 227 Cal.Rptr. 763).

The doctrine of respondeat superior applies to public and private employers alike. As stated in subdivision (a) of Government Code section 815.2 (all further statutory references are to the Government Code): "A public entity is liable for injury proximately caused by an act or omission of an employee of the public entity within the scope of his employment if the act or omission would, apart from this section, have given rise to a cause of action against that employee or his personal representative." By this language, the Legislature incorporated "general standards of tort liability as the primary basis for respondeat superior liability of public entities...." (Van Alstyne, op. cit. supra, § 2.32, at p. 77.) Courts have construed the term "scope of employment" in section 815.2 as broadly as in private tort litigation. (Van Alstyne, op. cit. supra, § 2.32, at p. 79; see generally, John R. v. Oakland Unified School Dist., supra, 48 Cal.3d at p. 447, 256 Cal.Rptr. 766, 769 P.2d 948.)

B. California Decisions Discussing Public Employer Liability for Sexually Assaultive Conduct by Police

When the Court of Appeal decided this case, only one published decision in this state had addressed the issue of whether a law enforcement officer who commits a sexual assault while on duty can be deemed to have acted within the scope of employment. In White v. County of Orange (1985) 166 Cal.App.3d 566, 212 Cal.Rptr. 493, a deputy sheriff detained a female motorist late at night, placed her...