station. Applicant attempted to rise when the homeless person returned and struck applicant in the left temple with a fist causing applicant to fall backwards striking his head. QME Dr. Anderson diagnosed applicant with left temporal intracranial hemorrhage, post-concussive syndrome, and persistent headaches attributed to moderate traumatic brain injury. Defendant argued that the fact that applicant exited the station and attempted to chase an individual constituted deviation from his job and took applicant outside the course of employment. The job summary states that the primary purpose of the security officer is to provide protection for Greyhound property and personnel. The employee manual also states that the security offices are “expected to challenge persons in a professional manner to enforce access to restricted areas” but are not to put themselves in danger. Labor Code 3600 imposes liability on an employer for workers’ compensation benefits only if its employee sustains an injury “arising out of and in the course of employment.” An employer is liable, where, at the time of the injury, an employee is “performing service growing out of and incidental to his or her employment and is acting within the course of employment.” The WCAB held that the performance of a duty in an unauthorized manner does not take the employee outside the course of employment. The fact that the applicant exited the bus station and attempted to chase and/or apprehend the individual did not constitute a deviation that took him outside of the course of his employment.
CIVIL RIGHTS CASES
Summaries provided by Noah G. Blechman , Darra Lanigan, Alexander Romero, and Ashlee Thomas of McNamara, Ney, Beatty, Slattery, Borges & Ambacher, LLP B.B. v. County of Los Angeles (2020) 10 Cal.5th 1 Summary: California Civil Code § 1431.2, comparative fault, does not apply to intentional tortfeasors held liable for injures based on an intentional tort. Discussion: On August 3, 2012, Los Angeles County Sheriff ’s deputies responded to a report of an ongoing assault. Darren Burley was on scene, making slow, stiff, exaggerated robotic movements, foaming at the mouth, and grunting. Deputies suspected Burley was on PCP. A struggle ensued, in which multiple officers put as much bodyweight as they could on his head, neck, and back. At one point, an officer had Burley in a headlock. Witnesses saw officers hit Burley in the head 7-10 times. There were disputed facts regarding what happened after Burley was restrained. Officers stated they stopped using force against Burley. The fire captain testified otherwise. Regardless, Burley’s pulse stopped, he lost consciousness, and ten days later, he died. According to the autopsy, Burley died from brain death and swelling from lack of oxygen following cardiac arrest due to status post restraint maneuvers, or behavior associated with cocaine, PCP and cannabinoids intake. The jury found against Deputy Aviles, attributing 20% of the responsibility for Burley’s death to his unreasonable use of force, 40% of the responsibility for Burley’s death to Burley himself, and the remaining 40% to the other two deputies. The trial court entered judgment for 100% of the non-economic damages against Deputy Aviles, because his liability was based on an intentional tort, battery. The Court of Appeals reversed that judgement, holding that § 1431.2 limits the liability for noneconomic damages of all defendants, including intentional tortfeasors. Civil Code § 1431.2 (a) provides: “In any action for personal injury, property damage, or wrongful death, based upon principles of comparative fault, the liability of each defendant for non-economic damages shall be several only and shall not be joint. Each defendant shall be liable only for the amount of non-economic damages allocated to that defendant in direct proportion to that defendant’s percentage of fault, and a separate judgment shall be rendered against that defendant for that amount.” Plaintiffs argued that the phrase “based on principles of comparative fault” meant that the statute did not apply to intentional tortfeasors, as intentional tort actions are not based in principles of comparative fault. The California Supreme Court agreed with that interpretation, holding that § 1431.2 does not authorize a reduction in the liability of intentional tortfeasors for non-economic damages. Page 10
