Laserfiche WebLink
<br />No Right To Independent <br />Counsel Beyond Statutory <br />Provisions <br />The County of San Diego has succeeded <br />in establishing important law on a public <br />entity's duty to provide independent <br />counsel for employees charged with ille- <br />gal conduct. At issue was the county's <br />obligation to provide such counsel in a <br />case involving police misconduct; the vic- <br />tims sought both compensatory and <br />punitive damages. The court examined <br />-the statutory scheme governing indem- <br />nification and defense of public employ- <br />ees and concluded the statutory scheme <br />adequately protects the rights of public <br />employees to a defense and indemnifica- <br />tion. See Cal. Gov't Code §§ 825 et seq., <br />995 et seq. The court then noted "there <br />is no room and no need for ajudicially- <br />declared right to independent counsel of <br />the Cumis variety. So broad an exten- <br />sion of existing law would be a matter for <br />the Legislature, not this court." Laws v. <br />County of San Diego, _Cal. App. 3d_, <br />_Cal. Rptr._, 90 Daily Journal D.A.R. <br />3526 (4th Dist. March 28, 1990). <br />Paramedic's Failure <br />To Treat Ruled <br />Wrongful Death <br />The Gity of Los Angeles and a fire depart- <br />ment paramedic have been found liable <br />for $2 million in the shock-related death <br />of a young man suffering from sickle cell <br />disease. Police and paramedics had been <br />called to the scene of an apparent alterca- <br />tion between the victim and another man. <br />The court of appeal found substantial evi- <br />dence to support the jury's finding that <br />the paramedic performed a grossly negli- <br />gent examination of the victim and this <br />failure to examine and treat the victim <br />was the legal cause of his death. The re- <br />sponding police officers were not, howev- <br />er, held liable and the victim's family did <br />not recover as bystanders to the events <br />for their own emotional distress. Wright v. <br />City of Los Angeles, _Cal. App. 3d_, <br />_Cal. Rptr._, 90 Daily Journal D.A.R. <br />3577 (2d Dist March 30,1990). <br />No Recovery In Body- <br />surfing Accident <br />Another beach-goer has sued a city for <br />injuries sustained while body surfing and <br />again the city has established its immuni- <br />ty from injuries caused by a natural con- <br />dition based on the swimmer's engaging <br />in a hazardous recreational activity. The <br />City of Newport Beach successfully de- <br />fended against claims that the develop- <br />ment of Newport Harbor resulted in an <br />°unnatural" condition at the accident site <br />and the city had a duty to warn the swim- <br />mer, even assuming the city knew of the <br />submerged sandbar. Tessier v. City of <br />Newport Beach, _Cal. App. 3d_, _Cal. <br />Rptr._, 90 Daily Journal D.A.R. 3572 <br />(4th Dist March 29, 1990). <br />No Waiver `~ <br />For Untimely Claim <br />Observing that the losing arguments <br />were °strained and illogical and must be <br />rejected," a court of appeal has deter- <br />mined certain claims against the City of <br />Turlock were filed too late. The <br />claimant, who tripped and fell on a city <br />sidewalk, filed her claim against the city <br />more than a year after the accident. <br />After the city rejected the claim as being <br />untimely, the claimant filed an amended <br />claim listing additional injuries. The city <br />again denied the claim, giving the warn- <br />ing required by Government Code sec- <br />tion 945.6 that claimant had six months <br />to file a lawsuit. <br />In rejecting the amended claim, the <br />city did not repeat its determination that <br />the claim was untimely. The claimant ar- <br />gued that this meant that the city waived <br />the untimeliness defense and consented <br />to be sued. The court concluded that <br />since appellant had never filed any re- <br />quest (timely or otherwise) for permis- <br />sion to file a late claim, her claim was <br />time barred and could not be granted. <br />Dixon v. City of Turlock, __Cal. App. <br />3d_, _Cal. Rptr._, 90 Daily Journal <br />DAR 4351 (5th Dist. Apri119, 1990). <br />FROM THE ATTORNEY GENERAL <br />Confidential Affirmative <br />Action Investigation <br />Report <br />The Attorney General has opined a coun- <br />ty affirmative action officer may not law- <br />fully furnish a copy of a completed inves- <br />tigation report to anon-police officer <br />complainant who has filed an affirmative <br />action complaint against the police offi- <br />cer. The Attorney General concluded <br />that disclosure would violate the provi- <br />sions of Penal Code section 932.7, which <br />protects the confidentiality of police per- <br />sonnel records. _Op. Att'y Gen._, 90 <br />Daily Journal DAR 3885 (Apri15, 1990). <br />Personnel Directors <br />As Public Officers <br />Noting that "[u]nder varying circum- <br />stances and for differing purposes, gov- <br />ernment administrators have been found <br />to hold public offices," the Attorney Gen- <br />eral has granted permission to sue to test <br />whether a personnel director is a "public <br />officer" for the purposes of Penal Code <br />section 424. That section disqualifies indi- <br />viduals from holding public office when <br />they misappropriate public monies. At <br />issue is whether a personnel director of a <br />school district who pled guilty to misap- <br />propriating public monies may continue to <br />hold that position. _Op. Att'y Gen._, 90 <br />Daily Journal DAR 3857 (April 3,1990). <br />^ <br />~~opC~~o~ MUNICIPAL <br />;,~ c y RESOURCE <br />~~w • Sy`~ CONSULTANTS <br />How To Get A Handle on Your <br />City's #1 Source of Income <br />^ For most California cities, sales <br />tax is the number one source of <br />revenue, typically comprising <br />20% to 50% of general fund <br />revenue. <br />^ Sales tax is also the most <br />unpredictable income source, <br />due to its complexity and vul- <br />nerability to sudden substantial <br />changes. <br />^ We specialize in providing sales <br />tax enhancement and informa- <br />tion services to California cities. <br />For specific information on how <br />your city can get a handle on <br />its #1 source of income (and <br />the businesses producing it), <br />simply call us at: <br />NORTHERN SOUTHERN <br />CALIFORNIA CALIFORNIA <br />Lowell Smith John Austin <br />(415) 838-1115 (818)991-5220 <br />San Ramon Westlake Village <br />21 <br />WESTERN CITY, JUNE 1990 <br />