Steinle v. United States

• Decision Date: 24 August 2021
• Docket Number: No. 20-15419,20-15419
• Citation: 17 F.4th 819
• Parties: James STEINLE, individually and as heir to Kathryn Steinle, deceased; Elizabeth Sullivan, individually and as heir to Kathryn Steinle, deceased, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee, and City and County of San Francisco, a government entity; Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez; Ross Mirkarimi, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

17 F.4th 819

James STEINLE, individually and as heir to Kathryn Steinle, deceased; Elizabeth Sullivan, individually and as heir to Kathryn Steinle, deceased, Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee,andCity and County of San Francisco, a government entity; Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez; Ross Mirkarimi, Defendants.

No. 20-15419

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted July 7, 2021 San Francisco, California

Filed August 24, 2021

Amended November 8, 2021

Valerie T. McGinty (argued), Law Office of Valerie T. McGinty, San Mateo, California; Frank M. Pitre and Donald Magilligan, Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy LLP, Burlingame, California; for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

Shiwon Choe (argued), Assistant United States Attorney; Sara Winslow, Chief, Civil Division; David L. Anderson, United States Attorney; United States Attorney's Office, San Francisco, California; for Defendant-Appellee.

Sharon Arkin, The Arkin Law Firm, Brookings, Oregon; Jonathan Lowy, Robert Cross and Christa Nicols, BRADY, Washington, D.C.; for Amicus Curiae BRADY.

Before: A. Wallace Tashima and Susan P. Graber, Circuit Judges, and Kathryn H. Vratil,^* District Judge.

ORDER

The Opinion filed on August 24, 2021 is amended by the Opinion filed concurrently with this Order.

The panel unanimously voted to deny the petition for panel rehearing. Judge Graber voted to deny the petition for rehearing en banc and Judges Tashima and Vratil so recommended. The full court has been advised of the petition for rehearing en banc, and no judge of the court has requested a vote. Fed. R. App. P. 35. The petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc, Docket No. 50, is DENIED. No further petitions for panel rehearing or rehearing en banc will be entertained.

AMENDED OPINION

GRABER, Circuit Judge

Plaintiffs James Steinle and Elizabeth Sullivan brought the present action against Defendant the United States pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act ("FTCA"), 28 U.S.C. § 1346. They allege that the negligence of Bureau of Land Management ("BLM") ranger John Woychowski resulted in the death of their daughter, Kathryn Steinle.¹ The district court entered summary judgment in favor of Defendant, concluding that Woychowski owed no duty to Ms. Steinle and that Plaintiffs failed to establish proximate causation. Reviewing de novo, King v. County of Los Angeles , 885 F.3d 548, 556 (9th Cir. 2018), we affirm on the ground that Woychowski's conduct was not the proximate cause of Ms. Steinle's death. We need not and do not reach the question whether, under California law, Woychowski owed a duty to Ms. Steinle.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

In 2015, Woychowski worked as a law enforcement ranger for the BLM, which is part of the United States Department of the Interior. His duty station was in El Centro, California. While traveling with his family in their personal car, en route to Montana, the family stopped for the night in San Francisco on June 27, 2015. Woychowski parked on the street along the Embarcadero, a waterfront boulevard popular with tourists, at about 9:30 p.m. The family walked to a nearby restaurant. The family's luggage and other belongings, including two DVD screens attached to the back of the seats, were visible to passersby. Among other things, Woychowski left in the car a loaded, BLM-issued Sig Sauer P239, in a holster, inside a backpack. The pistol did not have the trigger lock on it that the BLM had issued to Woychowski.

Just before 11 p.m., Woychowski and his family returned to the car. They found the rear passenger windows smashed and the backpack, along with some other property, gone. Woychowski reported the theft to police immediately. The backpack was recovered that night, but the pistol that had been in it was not.

Four days after the theft, the fatal incident occurred. On July 1, 2015, Ms. Steinle was walking with her father on Pier 14 near the Embarcadero, about half a mile from where Woychowski had parked the family car. Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez was sitting on a bench nearby. He found Woychowski's pistol, wrapped in a shirt or rag, near where he was sitting. He bent over and picked up the wrapped pistol; he fired it; and a bullet ricocheted off the ground, striking and killing Ms. Steinle.² It is not known who stole the pistol, how many people possessed it in the four days between June 27 and July 1, who took the pistol out of the holster and wrapped it in a shirt or rag (or why they did so), or how the pistol came to be left near the bench where Lopez-Sanchez found it.

Plaintiffs sued under the FTCA, alleging that Woychowski was negligent in failing to store or secure his firearm properly and in leaving it, loaded, in an unattended vehicle in an urban location where the firearm could be stolen readily. The district court entered summary judgment in favor of Defendant, ruling that Woychowski owed no duty to Ms. Steinle under California law and that Woychowski's actions were not a proximate cause of her death. Plaintiffs timely appeal.

DISCUSSION

Under the FTCA, the United States may be held liable for "personal injury or death caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission of any employee of the Government ... under circumstances where the United States, if a private person, would be liable to the claimant in accordance with the law of the place where the act or omission occurred." 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b)(1). Because the alleged negligence occurred in California, we apply the tort law of California. Miller v. United States , 945 F.2d 1464, 1466 (9th Cir. 1991) (per curiam). And we review de novo the district court's interpretation of California tort law. Harbeson v. Parke Davis, Inc. , 746 F.2d 517, 521 (9th Cir. 1984).

In California, the "plaintiff in a negligence suit must demonstrate a legal duty to use due care, a breach of such legal duty, and the breach as the proximate or legal cause of the resulting injury." Vasilenko v. Grace Fam. Church , 3 Cal. 5th 1077, 1083, 224 Cal.Rptr.3d 846, 404 P.3d 1196 (2017) (internal quotation marks omitted). As noted, we do not reach the question whether Woychowski owed a duty of care to Ms. Steinle. The required element of legal causation has two components: "cause in fact and proximate cause." S. Coast Framing, Inc. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. , 61 Cal. 4th 291, 298, 188 Cal.Rptr.3d 46, 349 P.3d 141 (2015).³ Although causation often presents a question of fact for the jury, "where the facts are such that the only reasonable conclusion is an absence of causation, the question is one of law, not of fact." State Dep't of State Hosps. v. Super. Ct. , 61 Cal. 4th 339, 353, 188 Cal.Rptr.3d 309, 349 P.3d 1013 (2015) (internal quotation marks omitted). Because the factual causes of an event may be traced far into the past, the law imposes additional limitations on liability. Those additional limitations relate not only to the degree of connection between the conduct and the injury, but also to public policy. Id. The doctrine can bar liability even when the defendant's conduct is a factual cause of harm, depending on the manner in which the injury occurred or the extent to which the ultimate harm is attenuated from the breach of duty alleged. Id. ; see also PPG Indus., Inc. v. Transamerica Ins. Co. , 20 Cal. 4th 310, 315, 84 Cal.Rptr.2d 455, 975 P.2d 652 (1999) ("To simply say ... that the defendant's conduct was a necessary antecedent of the injury does not resolve the question of whether the defendant should be liable.").

We conclude that the connection between Woychowski's storage of the pistol in his vehicle and Ms. Steinle's death is so remote that, as a matter of law, Woychowski's acts were not the proximate or legal cause of the fatal incident. Several events—many of which remain unknown—intervened after Woychowski left the loaded pistol in his vehicle: (1) someone broke into the locked vehicle; (2) someone stole a seemingly innocuous backpack; (3) someone found a pistol in that backpack; (4) someone removed the pistol from its holster, then wrapped it in a cloth and abandoned or lost it a half-mile away; (5) Lopez-Sanchez picked up the firearm, four days later, and fired it, apparently aimlessly; and (6) the bullet ricocheted off the ground and struck Ms. Steinle.

That "Rube Goldbergesque system of fortuitous linkages," Wawanesa Mut. Ins. Co. v. Matlock , 60 Cal. App. 4th 583, 588, 70 Cal.Rptr.2d 512 (1997), is comparable to the facts in cases in which California courts have held that proximate cause is lacking as a matter of law. In Wawanesa , a minor bought two packs of cigarettes and gave one to a slightly younger minor. Id. at 585, 70 Cal.Rptr.2d 512. The minors then trespassed onto a private storage facility containing stacked telephone poles. Id. As the younger minor smoked, another minor ran into him, causing him to drop the cigarette, which set fire to the poles. Id. The company that owned the poles sued the cigarette-purchasing minor for negligence. Id. at 586, 70 Cal.Rptr.2d 512. As the Court of Appeal explained, "the concatenation between [the minor's] initial act of giving [the friend] a packet of cigarettes and the later fire is simply too attenuated to show the fire was reasonably within the scope of the risk created by the initial act." Id. at 588, 70 Cal.Rptr.2d 512 (emphasis omitted). There was "simply too much fortuity in the chain." Id. at 589, 70 Cal.Rptr.2d 512.

The Court of Appeal similarly concluded that there was no proximate causation in Shih v. Starbucks Corp. , 53 Cal. App. 5th 1063, 267 Cal.Rptr.3d 919 (2020). A plaintiff sued Starbucks after she spilled a cup of hot tea and suffered serious burns; she alleged that the cup was defective. Id. at 1065, 267 Cal.Rptr.3d 919. But other mishaps led to the spill: the plaintiff walked to a table with the drink, put the drink down, removed the lid, bent over the table, pushed out her chair, lost her balance, grabbed the table to avoid failing, and knocked her drink off the table. Id. at 1070, 267 Cal.Rptr.3d...