Family Can’t Sue Over Officer’s Death, High Court Rules

Survivors of police officers killed accidentally on city streets cannot sue the municipality for negligently creating unsafe conditions, the California Supreme Court ruled unanimously Thursday.

The court, in its first signed opinion since three new justices assumed office in March, said family members in such circumstances are limited to benefits from pension and workers’ compensation programs.

By participating in those programs, survivors effectively forfeit their right to sue for potentially large damage awards in return for the assurance of lesser but swifter compensation, the court said in an opinion by Justice Stanley Mosk.

The court also held that such suits cannot be brought against a city for violating its duty to the general public to maintain safe streets. The streets are an officer’s workplace, it said, and any claim resulting from an officer’s death must be made through the pension and worker compensation programs.

The decision was a victory for the city of Fremont, the defendant in a wrongful death action brought by survivors of an officer killed in a traffic accident at an intersection they contended was hampered by poor visibility.

The city had argued that opening municipalities to liability in such circumstances would force them to obtain costly insurance or pass on the risk of large damage awards to the taxpayers.

18-Page Opinion

The court’s 18-page opinion was its first decision on a substantive legal question since three new appointees of Gov. George Deukmejian took office after the departure of Chief Justice Rose Elizabeth Bird and two other justices defeated in the November election.

The new court, under Chief Justice Malcolm M. Lucas, had previously issued four unsigned decisions--two involving disciplinary actions against judges, one disbarring an attorney and one dismissing a civil case on procedural grounds.

More full-fledged decisions are expected in the coming weeks as the justices act in cases they have heard since the court resumed its schedule of monthly oral arguments in April.

In the case decided Thursday, the wife and two sons of David Jones sued the city of Fremont, claiming that its design and construction of a bridge obstructed the view at an intersection where Jones was killed in 1976 when his patrol car was struck by another vehicle. (The family also sued the driver of the other car and eventually reached a $50,000 settlement with his insurer, attorneys said).

The city contended that it could not be sued and that the family was entitled only to benefits under the workers’ compensation law and the state Public Employees’ Retirement System program, to which Jones belonged.

Burial Allowance

Both an Alameda Superior Court judge and a state Court of Appeal panel in San Francisco rejected Fremont’s contention, and the city took the case to the state Supreme Court.

The justices noted that Jones’ widow had received burial allowance and other payments totaling $35,810 under the state retirement program. Other provisions entitle the family to special death benefits based on Jones’ salary at the time of his death.

The court rejected the family’s contention that it should be able to sue because Jones was not covered by the workers’ compensation law, the long-established statewide system that provides benefits for work-related death and injury regardless of fault.

The justices, resolving a series of questions arising from the language of the statutes covering the two sometimes overlapping programs, concluded that officers like Jones are covered under the workers’ compensation program and thus survivors cannot bring negligence suits against a city.

The justices also rejected the family’s contention that the city could be sued in its capacity as a public entity for failing its duty to the general public--including the officer--to maintain the safety of city streets.

In this case, Mosk wrote, the intersection was the officer’s “place of work,” and, as in any other on-the-job injury, his survivors must obtain benefits through the workers’ compensation program.

Mosk said the system seeks to maintain balance by protecting employers from liability for accidents in the workplace while providing workers with prompt and certain compensation.

“The employee for his part surrenders the right to a potentially larger recovery,” Mosk wrote. Allowing survivors to sue would “seriously interfere” with that balance, he said.

‘Very Gratified’

Ralph Lombardi, an Oakland attorney who represented Fremont in the case, said city officials are “very gratified” by the decision. Had the court ruled otherwise, he said, “cities could be looking at potential judgments that, especially in today’s atmosphere, could prove disastrous.”

Lombardi said the decision would probably cover an undetermined but substantial number of cities where public safety officers participate in the state retirement program. Other cities, like Los Angeles, operate under different pension systems and would not be directly affected, he noted.

Attorneys for Jones’ family declined comment pending review of the court’s opinion.

In another action Thursday, the court summarily denied a request made by attorneys for Pacific Gas & Electric Co. to dismiss a challenge filed by a consumer group to a rate increase for the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant. The court had agreed to hear the case before Bird and Justices Cruz Reynoso and Joseph R. Grodin left office.