State Justices Asked to Find City Liable in Rape by LAPD Officer : Courts: An appeals panel overturned a $150,000 award, saying the crime was too unusual for police to guard against.

In a test of the limits of municipal liability, the state Supreme Court was told Wednesday that the City of Los Angeles should be held financially responsible for the rape of a woman by an on-duty city police officer.

An attorney for the victim urged the justices to reinstate a $150,000 verdict against the city that had been overturned by a state Court of Appeal in 1988. The appellate panel held that the city was protected from liability because the crime of rape by an officer was personally motivated and “so unusual, startling and uncharacteristic” it could not be reasonably foreseen.

The woman’s lawyer, Vann H. Slatter, argued that rape should not be treated differently from assault and battery or other crimes for which municipalities already may be held liable when an officer is exercising official authority.

“If an officer beat this citizen with a nightstick, the Court of Appeal would have had no problem finding the city liable,” Slatter said. “To hold that a beating of a man during an arrest is compensable, but that a sexual assault on a woman is not, is unjust. . . . The city must pay the price--and it will get a great deal back in terms of respect.”

Deputy City Atty. Katherine J. Hamilton replied that the city should not be held responsible for an act unconnected to the officer’s job. While the officer validly used his official authority in detaining the woman, the rape itself was accomplished by the use of “force and violence,” not authority, she said.

“This was a totally outrageous act--beyond any authority the officer had,” said Hamilton. “He knew what he was doing was improper.”

The justices heard the arguments in their Los Angeles courtroom. The case could establish new legal boundaries for the financial accountability of government agencies for the improper actions of employees. A ruling is due within 90 days.

The woman, now 36, was stopped on suspicion of drunk driving in 1981 by Sgt. Leigh B. Schroyer, a 15-year veteran of the Los Angeles Police Department. According to court papers, the woman pleaded not to be taken to jail because she had two small children. The officer drove her in his patrol car to her Northridge home. After entering the house, he grabbed her, told her to be quiet or he would take her to jail, and raped her.

Schroyer later resigned from the force. He was convicted and sent to prison for 18 months. The woman brought a civil suit against the officer and the city, contending that the assault had caused her to develop a drinking problem, lose interest in sex and gain 75 pounds.

A Los Angeles Superior Court jury awarded her $150,000 damages from the city and $150,000 from the officer. But in a 2-1 decision, the appeals court reversed the award against the city, finding that the crime had nothing to do with Schroyer’s duties. Attorneys for the woman appealed to the high court.

In Wednesday’s hourlong arguments, Slatter contended that the officer’s acts all were connected to his duties and that throughout the episode the woman believed she could not flee without being subject to arrest.

The attorney said such crimes were foreseeable because the city has a policy requiring officers to notify headquarters any time they are transporting a person of the opposite sex and to report the mileage on their vehicles. “That shows the LAPD knows these things can occur,” he said.

Hamilton replied that incidents of sexual assault by officers “fortunately are very few and far between.” The reporting policy, she added, was actually intended to protect officers against false accusations of improper conduct.

Questions from the justices implied that a majority may be ready to extend municipal liability to cover sex crimes by on-duty officers. Two years ago, the high court ruled that a school district could not be held liable for a sexual assault by a teacher on a student, saying the employee’s personal actions were not related closely enough to his authority as a teacher.

Justice Allen E. Broussard noted that the city may be held financially accountable for officers’ actions in the beating case of Rodney G. King. If the city may be held liable for excessive force by officers, Broussard asked, why not also for a rape by a police officer?

Hamilton acknowledged that a city can be held liable in excessive-force cases. Officers are authorized to use some force in arresting suspects but sometimes go beyond proper limits, she noted. But no authority is given to officers that would lead in the same way to a sexual assault, she said. To equate the improper use of a baton with a sexual assault is “absurd,” she said.

Slatter said that municipalities should be held accountable for sexual assaults just as they may be held liable for other crimes by officers. Extending liability, he said, would encourage cities to establish programs to guard against such assaults and give victims greater assurance of being financially compensated.