(a)Neither a public entity nor a public employee is liable for:
(1)An injury caused by an escaping or escaped person who has been confined for mental illness or addiction.
(2)An injury to, or the wrongful death of, an escaping or escaped person who has been confined for mental illness or addiction.
(b)Nothing in this section exonerates a public employee from liability:
(1)If he acted or failed to act because of actual fraud, corruption, or actual malice.
(2)For injuries inflicted as a result of his own negligent or wrongful act or omission on an escaping or escaped mental patient in recapturing him.
Notes of Decisions
Ladd v. Cnty. of San Mateo, 911 P.2d 496 (Cal. 1996).
· cites it 6× “In its 1970 recommendations to the Legislature the Law Revision Commission emphasized the discrepancy: `Government Code section 856.2 presently confers immunity only as to injuries caused by an escaping or escaped mental patient.”
Thomas v. City of Richmond, 892 P.2d 1185 (Cal. 1995).
· cites it 2× “In its 1970 recommendations to the Legislature the Law Revision Commission emphasized the discrepancy: "Government Code section 856.2 presently confers immunity only as to injuries caused by an escaping or escaped mental patient.”
Johnson v. Cnty. of Ventura, 29 Cal. App. 4th 1400 (Cal. Ct. App. 1994).
“” Government Code section 856.2, subdivision (a), provides: “(a) Neither a public entity nor a public employee is liable for: H] (1) An injury caused by an escaping or escaped person who has been confined for mental illness or addiction, (2) An injury to, or the wrongful death…”
Guzman v. Cnty. of Los Angeles, 234 Cal. App. 3d 1343 (Cal. Ct. App. 1991).
“Then, while the patient was still under the 72-hour hold, she was transferred from the mental facility to the main hospital center for a “medical workup including X-rays and an electrocardiogram” because the mental facility itself did not have the equipment to perform the…”
Spath v. Cnty. of Santa Clara (N.D. Cal. 2023).
· cites it 2× “23 Cal. Gov. Code § 856.2 (a). “[A] person on a 72-hour psychiatric hold is ‘confined’ for purposes 24 of section 856.”
Spath v. Cnty. of Santa Clara (N.D. Cal. 2023).
· cites it 2× “Immunity under California Government Code § 856.2 24 Santa Clara next asserts counts three through six should be dismissed pursuant to 25 California Government Code § 856.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.