In Arista v. County of Riverside, published November 20, 2018, the Fourth District Court of Appeal, Division 2 reversed in part and affirmed in part a trial court decision sustaining a demurrer without leave to amend and dismissing an action against the defendant county. According to the complaint's allegations, the plaintiffs' decedent set out mountain biking one morning in light clothing. He intended to return early that afternoon. In the early evening, the decedent's wife contacted the decedent by cellphone. The decedent stated that he had been injured in an accident, but was returning home. He sounded disoriented and confused. The wife called 911. The operator instructed her to stay home and wait for law enforcement. First city police, and then a sheriff's deputy came to the home. The deputy had the cellphone company ping the decedent's phone. The location was near the decedent's original destination on the mountain. The company had personnel working in the area. The deputy asked the company to have its personnel be vigilant for the decedent's location. At 10 p.m. a sheriff's lieutenant arrived at the home. He identified himself as the "Incident Commander" for the case. He had no search and rescue training. He allegedly told the deputy that he believed the decedent was having an affair, and questioned why law enforcement was involved. The lieutenant told the wife that the sheriff's department would start the search in the morning. When the wife asked the chances of the decedent dying of hypothermia, the lieutenant replied that the decedent was a grown man and could take care of himself. The department had a team with all-terrain vehicles that could have been dispatched to search for the decedent, but were not. Deputies with sedan-type vehicles were assigned to watch the trailheads. The department allegedly told the wife not to initiate any search. Nevertheless, the family organized itself into a search team and began searching on foot at 3:45 a.m. In the morning, a volunteer who worked with the sheriff's department searched for the decedent, and found his body on a fire access road. He had died of hypothermia.
The appellate court held that based on those allegations, the complaint stated causes of action against the county for wrongful death, negligence, and negligent infliction of emotional distress. Police officers may owe a duty to provide affirmative assistance if they enter into a special relationship with a member of the public. A special relationship may be found when the state, through its agents, voluntarily assumes a protective duty toward a member of the public and undertakes actions on behalf of that member, inducing reliance. One who voluntarily comes to the aid of another is under a duty of due care in performance, and may be held liable in negligence if failure to exercise due care increases the risk to the person or if reliance on the undertaking causes harm. The court concluded that the sheriff's department's alleged actions showed that they undertook the responsibility of rescuing the decedent. They induced reliance on their actions, as shown by the allegation that the family did not undertake its own rescue efforts until the lieutenant told the wife the department would not begin searching until morning. The appellate court affirmed, however, the demurrer as to the Monell cause of action under 42 U.S.C. section 1983. Monell liability requires facts showing deliberate indifference. The complaint did not plead any such facts. Because the plaintiffs did not show how they would amend the complaint to show deliberate indifference, the trial court properly denied leave to amend as to that cause of action.
Comments