Stearns v. County of Los Angeles

California Court of Appeal Jul 25, 1969 No. Civ. 33050Published

Before: Kingsley

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the defendants are immune from liability under Government Code section 821.6 for injuries resulting from the institution or prosecution of judicial proceedings, but reversed the dismissal to allow the plaintiff an opportunity to amend the complaint.

Issues

Whether the defendants are immune from liability under Government Code section 821.6 for damages resulting from a criminal prosecution initiated by the defendants' actions.
Whether the trial court erred in sustaining the demurrers without leave to amend.

Disposition. reversed and remanded

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Since the immunity of section 821.6 inures to the benefit of both Dr. Kade and the County of Los Angeles, it follows that their respective demurrers were properly sustained.”

“The judgment of dismissal is reversed; the order sustaining defendants’ demurrer is reversed insofar as it denied plaintiff leave to amend”

KINGSLEY, J.

The case is here on an agreed statement of facts, reading as follows:

“I

“Nature of the Controversy

“A complaint for damages was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, on

[136]

March 3,1967, against the County of Los Angeles, Harold Kade and several fictitious defendants after compliance hy plaintiff with California Code Section 910 et seq. The first cause of action alleged that Dr. Harold Kade a Deputy County Coroner for the County of Los Angeles, performed an autopsy upon plaintiff’s wife and that said autopsy was performed with negligence, and that as a result thereof the plaintiff was wrongfully charged with murder in the first degree; that a subsequent autopsy performed at plaintiff’s expense proved that Dr. Kade’s report and testimony at plaintiff’s preliminary hearing was totally without foundation. The second cause of action against the County alleged that defendant County was aware of the incompetency and unfitness of defendant Kade, and failed to discharge him. The third cause of action against Dr. Kade alleged that Dr. Kade instigated criminal prosecution maliciously.

“II

“Fubtheb Pboceedings Below

“On July 31, 1967, Dr. Kade filed his demurrer, alleging that the complaint failed to state a cause of action. On August 8, 1967, the defendant County filed its demurrer based upon the same grounds. Extensive briefs were filed by both sides, and arguments were heard thereon on September 27, 1967, and on October 25, 1967, by the Honorable Judge Ernest J. Zaek, sitting in Department 67 of the Superior Court. Additional Points and Authorities were filed by both sides. On November 20, 1967, Judge Zack sustained the demurrers of both the defendant County and defendant Kade, without leave to amend and signed the order dismissing the complaint. Plaintiff filed his notice of appeal from said order. ’ ’

The parties have argued extensively whether or not Dr. Kade’s alleged'negligence was a discretionary act within the exemption granted by section 820.2 of the Government Code, especially as that section was construed in

Stearns v. County of Los Angeles

AI Brief

KINGSLEY, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief