statutory governmental immunity in California

2023First, “ ‘under California law, “[i]t is generally recognized that a statutory governmental immunity overrides a statute imposing liability.” . . . [A]bsent “a clear indication of legislative intent that statutory immunity is withheld or withdrawn,” a specific statutory immunity applies to shield a public employee from liability imposed by a particular statute.’ ” (County of Los Angeles v. Superior Court (2009) 181 Cal.App.4th 218, 231 ; see Gates v. Superior Court (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 481, 510 [“It is generally recognized that a statutory governmental immunity overrides a statute imposing li

2023First, “ ‘under California law, “[i]t is generally recognized that a statutory governmental immunity overrides a statute imposing liability.” . . . [A]bsent “a clear indication of legislative intent that statutory immunity is withheld or withdrawn,” a specific statutory immunity applies to shield a public employee from liability imposed by a particular statute.’ ” (County of Los Angeles v. Superior Court (2009) 181 Cal.App.4th 218, 231 ; see Gates v. Superior Court (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 481, 510 [“It is generally recognized that a statutory governmental immunity overrides a statute imposing li

2023First, “ ‘under California law, “[i]t is generally recognized that a statutory governmental immunity overrides a statute imposing liability.” . . . [A]bsent “a clear indication of legislative intent that statutory immunity is withheld or withdrawn,” a specific statutory immunity applies to shield a public employee from liability imposed by a particular statute.’ ” (County of Los Angeles v. Superior Court (2009) 181 Cal.App.4th 218, 231 ; see Gates v. Superior Court (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 481, 510 [“It is generally recognized that a statutory governmental immunity overrides a statute imposing li

2023First, “ ‘under California law, “[i]t is generally recognized that a statutory governmental immunity overrides a statute imposing liability.” . . . [A]bsent “a clear indication of legislative intent that statutory immunity is withheld or withdrawn,” a specific statutory immunity applies to shield a public employee from liability imposed by a particular statute.’ ” (County of Los Angeles v. Superior Court (2009) 181 Cal.App.4th 218, 231 ; see Gates v. Superior Court (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 481, 510 [“It is generally recognized that a statutory governmental immunity overrides a statute imposing li

2023Second, “ ‘[w]hen a statute omits a particular category from a more generalized list, a court can reasonably infer a specific legislative intent not to include that category within the statute’s mandate.’ ” (Mora v. Webcor Construction, L.P. (2018) 6 20 Cal.App.5th 211, 219-220 ; Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage Co. v. Superior Court (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 158, 165 [“Where . . . ‘ “a statute enumerates the persons or things to be affected by its provisions, there is an implied exclusion of others . . [, and] the court is without power to supply an omission.” ’ ”].) Section 844.6 contains

2023Second, “ ‘[w]hen a statute omits a particular category from a more generalized list, a court can reasonably infer a specific legislative intent not to include that category within the statute’s mandate.’ ” (Mora v. Webcor Construction, L.P. (2018) 6 20 Cal.App.5th 211, 219-220 ; Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage Co. v. Superior Court (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 158, 165 [“Where . . . ‘ “a statute enumerates the persons or things to be affected by its provisions, there is an implied exclusion of others . . [, and] the court is without power to supply an omission.” ’ ”].) Section 844.6 contains

2023First, “ ‘under California law, “[i]t is generally recognized that a statutory governmental immunity overrides a statute imposing liability.” . . . [A]bsent “a clear indication of legislative intent that statutory immunity is withheld or withdrawn,” a specific statutory immunity applies to shield a public employee from liability imposed by a particular statute.’ ” (County of Los Angeles v. Superior Court (2009) 181 Cal.App.4th 218, 231 ; see Gates v. Superior Court (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 481, 510 [“It is generally recognized that a statutory governmental immunity overrides a statute imposing li

2023First, “ ‘under California law, “[i]t is generally recognized that a statutory governmental immunity overrides a statute imposing liability.” . . . [A]bsent “a clear indication of legislative intent that statutory immunity is withheld or withdrawn,” a specific statutory immunity applies to shield a public employee from liability imposed by a particular statute.’ ” (County of Los Angeles v. Superior Court (2009) 181 Cal.App.4th 218, 231 ; see Gates v. Superior Court (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 481, 510 [“It is generally recognized that a statutory governmental immunity overrides a statute imposing li

2021(Odello Bros. v. County of Monterey (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 778, 793 [decision to breach a levee and flood landowner’s property in order to protect other areas from high water] (Odello Bros.).) “[S]ection 815.2 provides in pertinent part that ‘(b) Except as otherwise provided by statute, a public entity is not liable for an injury resulting from an act or omission of an employee of the public entity where the employee is immune from liability.’ In other words, if a public employee has discretionary immunity, the public entity employer is also immune.” (Masters v. San Bernardino County Employees

2021(Odello Bros. v. County of Monterey (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 778, 793 [decision to breach a levee and flood landowner’s property in order to protect other areas from high water] (Odello Bros.).) “[S]ection 815.2 provides in pertinent part that ‘(b) Except as otherwise provided by statute, a public entity is not liable for an injury resulting from an act or omission of an employee of the public entity where the employee is immune from liability.’ In other words, if a public employee has discretionary immunity, the public entity employer is also immune.” (Masters v. San Bernardino County Employees

2021In County of Los Angeles v. Superior Court (2009) 181 Cal.App.4th 218, 231 , the court “reject[ed] plaintiffs’ contention that Civil Code section 52.1 prevails over the Government Code section 821.6 immunity.” The rejection was based on O'Toole v. Superior Court (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 488 . 17 There, the appellate court reasoned: “[U]nder California law ‘[i]t is generally recognized that a statutory governmental immunity overrides a statute imposing liability.’ [Citations.] Thus, absent ‘a clear indication of legislative intent that statutory immunity is withheld or withdrawn,’ a specific stat

2010But, “under California law, ‘[i]t is generally recognized that a statutory governmental immunity overrides a statute imposing liability.’ [Citations.] Thus, absent ‘a clear indication of legislative intent that statutory immunity is withheld or withdrawn,’ a specific statutory immunity applies to shield a public employee from liability imposed by a particular statute. [Citations.]” (O’Toole v. Superior Court (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 488, 504 [ 44 Cal.Rptr.3d 531 ] [holding Gov.

2006Although there are no published decisions specifically applying the section 820.6 immunity to the Bane Act, under California law “[i]t is generally recognized that a statutory governmental immunity overrides a statute imposing liability.” (Gates v. Superior Court (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 481, 510 [ 38 Cal.Rptr.2d 489 ]; see Caldwell v. Montoya (1995) 10 Cal.4th 972, 986 [ 42 Cal.Rptr.2d 842 , 897 P.2d 1320 ]; Gibson v. County of Riverside (C.D.Cal. 2002) 181 F.Supp.2d 1057, 1085-1086 .) Thus, absent “a clear indication of legislative intent that statutory immunity is withheld or withdrawn,” a spe

2006Although there are no published decisions specifically applying the section 820.6 immunity to the Bane Act, under California law “[i]t is generally recognized that a statutory governmental immunity overrides a statute imposing liability.” (Gates v. Superior Court (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 481, 510 [ 38 Cal.Rptr.2d 489 ]; see Caldwell v. Montoya (1995) 10 Cal.4th 972, 986 [ 42 Cal.Rptr.2d 842 , 897 P.2d 1320 ]; Gibson v. County of Riverside (C.D.Cal. 2002) 181 F.Supp.2d 1057, 1085-1086 .) Thus, absent “a clear indication of legislative intent that statutory immunity is withheld or withdrawn,” a spe

1980Accepting as true the relevant factual allegations in the complaint as is required in reviewing an order sustaining a demurrer (Vedder v. County of Imperial (1974) 36 Cal.App.3d 654, 658 [ 111 Cal.Rptr. 728 ]; Aweeka v. Bonds (1971) 20 Cal.App.3d 278, 280 [ 97 Cal.Rptr. 650 ], the following facts are set forth.

1980Accepting as true the relevant factual allegations in the complaint as is required in reviewing an order sustaining a demurrer (Vedder v. County of Imperial (1974) 36 Cal.App.3d 654, 658 [ 111 Cal.Rptr. 728 ]; Aweeka v. Bonds (1971) 20 Cal.App.3d 278, 280 [ 97 Cal.Rptr. 650 ], the following facts are set forth.

1980Accepting as true the relevant factual allegations in the complaint as is required in reviewing an order sustaining a demurrer (Vedder v. County of Imperial (1974) 36 Cal.App.3d 654, 658 [ 111 Cal.Rptr. 728 ]; Aweeka v. Bonds (1971) 20 Cal.App.3d 278, 280 [ 97 Cal.Rptr. 650 ], the following facts are set forth.

1980Accepting as true the relevant factual allegations in the complaint as is required in reviewing an order sustaining a demurrer (Vedder v. County of Imperial (1974) 36 Cal.App.3d 654, 658 [ 111 Cal.Rptr. 728 ]; Aweeka v. Bonds (1971) 20 Cal.App.3d 278, 280 [ 97 Cal.Rptr. 650 ], the following facts are set forth.