In Frausto v. Department of the California Highway Patrol, published August 21, 2020, the First District Court of Appeal, Division 2 affirmed a jury verdict in favor of plaintiffs in a wrongful death case. Officers conducted a traffic stop of the decedent. They suspected he was using drugs. They observed him put something in his mouth and swallow it. They repeatedly asked him if he had ingested drugs. He repeatedly stated he had put gum in his mouth and swallowed it. They observed no signs of drug intoxication. They brought him to jail. One of the officers prepared a probable cause declaration for the arrest that stated that the officer and another observed the suspect place what looked like a plastic baggie in his mouth and claim it was only gum. The arrest report did not mention a plastic baggie. The officer later testified the statements in the declaration about the baggie were mistakes. Soon after the officers brought the suspect to jail, he collapsed in his cell. He died of acute methamphetamine intoxication. The jury found the arresting officers 68% at fault for the decedent's death, and the decedent 22% at fault. On appeal, the defendants contended that they owed no duty of care to the decedent to do more than they did.
The Court of Appeal held that the arresting officers were in a special relationship with the decedent once they arrested him, imposing a duty of care similar to that a jailer owes a jailed person. Once in custody, an arrestee is vulnerable, dependent, subject to the officer's control, and unable to attend to his or her own medical needs. The officer therefore owes a duty of reasonable care to the arrestee regarding the arrestee's medical needs. The question of whether under the circumstances the officers should have recognized the arrestee had a need for immediate medical attention does not go to whether a duty exists, but rather whether the officers breached the duty.
Comments