Government Liability Update

MICRA 3-year Outer Limit Applies to Public Entity Defendants

The Second District Court of Appeal has ruled that the three-years-from-injury outer statute of limitations in CCP 340.5 (part of MICRA) applies to suits against public entity defendants.  Roberts v. County of Los Angeles, published today.

Safe Water Drinking Act's Obligation for Counties to Oversee Drinking Water Systems Does Not Impose Mandatory Duty to Notify Users of Dangers

In Guzman v. County of Monterey, published today, the California Supreme Court rejected an argument that the Safe Water Drinking Act requires counties that oversee privately-owned water systems to report unsafe conditions in those water systems to the users.  The Act places that responsibility on the system owners.  The Court therefore held that the defendant county could not be held liable under Government Code section 815.6 to users exposed to water with unsafe flouride levels.

Supreme Court Permits Reimbursement for Private School Special Education if School Fails to Provide It

In Forest Grove School District v. T.A., published today, the U.S. Supreme Court held that where a school district fails to provide a special education student any special education services, and the parent therefore enrolls the child in private special education, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act permits a hearing officer or court to order the school district to reimburse the parent for private education.  This decision expands upon previous decisions allowing reimbursement for private education where a school district first provides special education services that are inadequate. 

Government Code 821.6 Immunity Applies to Investigation That Allegedly Violates Peace Officers' Bill of Rights

In Paterson v. City of Los Angeles, published today, the plaintiffs, a married couple of LAPD officers, alleged that the city and their supervisor violated the Peace Officers' Bill of Rights statutes in investigating one of the officers' use of sick leave.  The supervisor allegedly sent a sergeant to the officers' house to see if the officer on sick leave was home.  The sergeant spoke with the couples' son and called the officer on his cell phone.  The officers alleged this was an investigation into suspected wrongdoing that failed to comply with the Bill of Rights' due process protections.  They also sued for infliction of emotional distress.

The appellate court reversed the summary judgment granted the defendants on the Bill of Rights cause of action.  But it affirmed summary judgment as to the emotional distress claim.  It ruled that Government Code section 821.6 -- which generally immunizes public employees (and vicariously their employers) from liability for investigations -- immunized the defendants from tort liability for the alledged sick leave investigation.