Lorah v. Biscailuz

GOULD, J.,

pro

tem.

Plaintiff, alleging physical injury and false imprisonment when she was arrested upon a felony charge, brought suit for damages against the arresting officer, who was a deputy sheriff of Los Angeles County, and against

[102]

the sheriff of said county and the latter’s official bondsmen. ■A general demurrer on behalf of the sheriff and his bondsmen was sustained without leave to amend, and from the resulting judgment plaintiff appeals. '

While the general rule is that a sheriff is liable for the torts of his deputies committed in the performance of the latters’ official acts or acts

colore officii (Abbott

v.

Cooper,

218 Cal. 425 [23 Pac. (2d) 1027];

Foley

v.

Martin,

142 Cal. 256 [71 Pac. 165, 75 Pac. 842,100 Am. St. Rep. 123]), upon thej theory that the deputy, appointed by and answerable to the sheriff, is his representative, this rule has been held inapplicable in the ease of a chief of police whose appointees are selected from a restricted list, who are under civil service regulations and who are in general governed by the provisions of a city charter.

(Michel

v.

Smith,

188 Cal. 199 [205 Pac. 113].) It is difficult to find points of vital dissimilarity between the case of the chief of police and police officers working under a city charter in

Michel

v.

Smith, supra,

and the case of the sheriff and deputy sheriff under the county charter and civil service regulations in the instant case. There it is held, correctly we believe, that the head of the department of law enforcement is not responsible for the acts of his subordinates “unless he has directed such acts to be done, or has personally cooperated in the offense”. The same rule applied here would relieve the sheriff of liability in this case.