Azcona v. Tibbs

California Court of Appeal Mar 23, 1961 No. Civ. 19520Published

Before: Shoemaker

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the defendants' alleged negligence in allowing prisoners to escape was not the proximate or direct cause of the decedent's death, as the prisoners' subsequent negligent operation of a vehicle was an unforeseeable intervening act.

Issues

Whether the defendants' alleged negligence in permitting prisoners to escape was the proximate cause of the decedent's death.
Whether the negligent operation of a vehicle by escaped prisoners is a foreseeable risk for which custodial officers may be held liable.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“It is clear that an original act of negligence is not a proximate cause when the injury directly results from the intervening act of another, which is an act not to be reasonably anticipated by the first party”

“We are satisfied that negligent operation of the ear was not a foreseeable risk and therefore proximate cause could not be established under the facts pleaded.”

SHOEMAKER, J.

This is an appeal by plaintiffs from a judgment of dismissal entered upon the sustaining of a demurrer without leave to amend interposed by defendants to plaintiffs’ first amended complaint.

Plaintiffs, the surviving wife and children, brought this action against Sheriff Tibbs of Monterey County and his deputy Ward, to recover damages for the wrongful death of Alfred M. Azcona. The complaint is east in three counts, one based on the Public Officer’s Liability Act (Gov. Code, § 1953), one based on negligence alleged with particularity, and the last based on negligence alleged generally. The parties agree that the particularly alleged facts give the complete story and the foundation for the several causes of action alleged; that portion of the complaint is as follows:

“1. On November 17, 1958, three (3) prisoners, Moore, Banalez and Sato, of the California State Prison at Soledad, California, were delivered to the custody of defendant Tibbs by said prison;

“2. On November 18, 1958, said prisoners were brought to the courtroom of Department 2 of the Superior Court of said County for arraignment, still in the custody of defendant Tibbs, and more specifically, in the physical custody of defendant Ward, Bailiff of said Court, to whom defendant Tibbs had previously delegated the duty of maintaining and securing said prisoners’ custody;

“3. To enable said prisoners to confer privately with their court-appointed attorney defendant Ward left them unguarded with their attorney in the jury room adjacent to said courtroom with the door closed, which said jury room was located on the third floor of the building, and had unbarred windows. While in said jury room said prisoners overpowered their attorney with the aid of a knife possessed by one of them, through the negligence of said defendant Ward in failing to adequately inspect said prisoners or otherwise to guard against such possession, and escaped through a window negligently left unlocked, to the street below by means of an electric cord negligently left in said jury room;

“4. Within approximately two hours of their escape from said jury room, two of the aforesaid prisoners, Moore and

[428]

Azcona v. Tibbs

AI Brief

SHOEMAKER, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief