Mary?M.?v.?City?of?Los?Angeles?(1991)?54?Cal.3d?202?,?285?Cal.Rptr.?99;?814?P.2d?1341
[No.?S005910.Sep?5,?1991.]
MARY?M.,?Plaintiff?and?Respondent,?v.?CITY?OF?LOS?ANGELES,?Defendant?and?Appellant.
(Superior?Court?of?Los?Angeles?County,?No.?C427209,?Carlos?E.?Velarde,?Judge.)
(Opinion?by?Kennard,?J.,?with?Mosk,?Broussard?and?Panelli,?JJ.,?concurring.?Separate?concurring?opinion?by?Arabian,?J.?Separate?opinion?by?Baxter,?J.,?concurring?in?the?judgment,?with?Lucas,?C.?J.,?concurring.)
COUNSEL
James?K.?Hahn,?City?Attorney,?John?T.?Neville?and?Richard?M.?Helgeson,?Assistant?City?Attorneys,?Katherine?J.?Hamilton?and?Greg?Wolff,?Deputy?City?Attorneys,?for?Defendant?and?Appellant.
Slatter?&?Slatter,?Slatter?&?Kiesel,?Vann?H.?Slater?and?Roni?Keller?for?Plaintiff?and?Respondent.
OPINION
KENNARD,?J.
Police?officers?occupy?a?unique?position?of?trust?in?our?society.?They?are?responsible?for?enforcing?the?law?and?protecting?society?from?criminal?acts.?They?are?given?the?authority?to?detain?and?to?arrest?and,?when?necessary,?to?use?deadly?force.?As?visible?symbols?of?that?formidable?power,?an?officer?is?furnished?a?distinctively?marked?car,?a?uniform,?a?badge,?and?a?gun.?Those?who?challenge?an?officer’s?actions?do?so?at?their?peril;?anyone?who?resists?an?officer’s?proper?exercise?of?authority?or?who?obstructs?the?performance?of?an?officer’s?duties?is?subject?to?criminal?prosecution.?(Pen.?Code,????69,?148.)?[54?Cal.3d?207]
When?law?enforcement?officers?abuse?their?authority?by?committing?crimes?against?members?of?the?community,?they?violate?the?public?trust.?This?may?seriously?damage?the?relationship?between?the?community?and?its?sworn?protectors,?by?eroding?the?community’s?confidence?in?the?integrity?of?its?police?force.
The?issue?in?this?case?is:?When?a?police?officer?on?duty,?by?misusing?his?official?authority,?rapes?a?woman?whom?he?has?detained,?can?the?public?entity?that?employs?him?be?held?vicariously?liable?for?his?misconduct??We?conclude?that?the?employer?can?be?held?liable?under?the?doctrine?of?respondeat?superior.
- Facts
About?2:30?a.m.?on?October?3,?1981,?plaintiff?Mary?M.?was?driving?home?alone?when?Sergeant?Leigh?Schroyer?of?the?Los?Angeles?Police?Department?stopped?her?for?erratic?driving.?Sergeant?Schroyer?was?on?duty?as?a?field?supervisor;?he?was?assigned?to?supervise?and?train?police?officers?patrolling?the?streets.?He?was?in?uniform,?wore?a?badge?and?a?gun,?and?was?driving?a?marked?black-and-white?police?car.?When?he?detained?plaintiff,?he?sent?in?a?radio?message?that?he?was?out?of?his?vehicle?conducting?an?investigation.
Sergeant?Schroyer?asked?plaintiff?for?her?driver’s?license;?plaintiff?gave?it?to?him.?He?then?asked?her?to?perform?a?field?sobriety?test?to?determine?whether?she?was?under?the?influence?of?alcohol.?Plaintiff,?who?had?been?drinking,?did?not?do?well?on?the?test.?She?began?to?cry,?and?pleaded?with?Schroyer?not?to?take?her?to?jail.?Schroyer?ordered?her?to?get?in?the?front?seat?of?the?police?car,?but?he?did?not?handcuff?her.?He?then?drove?to?plaintiff’s?home.
After?entering?the?house?with?plaintiff,?Sergeant?Schroyer?told?her?that?he?expected?”payment”?for?taking?her?home?instead?of?to?jail.?Plaintiff?tried?to?run?away,?but?Schroyer?grabbed?her?hair?and?threw?her?on?the?couch.?When?plaintiff?screamed,?Schroyer?put?his?hand?over?her?mouth?and?threatened?to?take?her?to?jail.?Plaintiff?stopped?struggling,?and?Schroyer?raped?her.?He?then?left?the?house.
From?his?police?car,?Sergeant?Schroyer?sent?a?radio?message?that?he?was?returning?from?a?”lunch”?break.?The?radio?operator?questioned?this,?because?Schroyer?had?previously?reported?that?he?was?conducting?an?investigation.?Schroyer?did?not?respond?to?the?question,?and?returned?to?the?police?station.
As?a?result?of?this?incident,?criminal?charges?were?filed?against?Sergeant?Schroyer,?and?a?jury?convicted?him?of?rape?(Pen.?Code,???261,?subd.?(2)).?The?trial?court?sentenced?him?to?state?prison.?[54?Cal.3d?208]
Plaintiff?then?brought?a?civil?lawsuit?against?both?Sergeant?Schroyer?and?his?employer,?the?City?of?Los?Angeles?(hereafter?the?City),?for?damages?arising?out?of?the?rape.?Plaintiff’s?complaint?originally?asserted?that?the?City?was?liable?for?negligence?in?employing?Schroyer?and?that,?as?Schroyer’s?employer,?the?City?was?also?vicariously?liable?under?the?doctrine?of?respondeat?superior.?At?trial,?however,?plaintiff?relied?solely?on?the?theory?of?respondeat?superior.?The?jury?returned?a?verdict?for?plaintiff,?finding?that?”at?the?time?of?the?events?out?of?which?this?case?arose”?Sergeant?Schroyer?was?”acting?within?the?scope?of?his?employment?with?the?Los?Angeles?Police?Department.”?The?jury?assessed?general?damages?of?$150,000?against?the?City.fn.?1
A?divided?Court?of?Appeal?reversed?the?judgment?against?the?City.?The?majority?held,?as?a?matter?of?law,?that?Sergeant?Schroyer?was?not?acting?within?the?scope?of?his?employment?when?he?raped?plaintiff.?We?granted?plaintiff’s?petition?for?review.
- Discussion
- General?Principles?Underlying?Employer’s?Vicarious?Liability
Recently,?we?articulated?three?reasons?for?applying?the?doctrine?of?respondeat?superior:?(1)?to?prevent?recurrence?of?the?tortious?conduct;?(2)?to?give?greater?assurance?of?compensation?for?the?victim;?and?(3)?to?ensure?that?the?victim’s?losses?will?be?equitably?borne?by?those?who?benefit?from?the?enterprise?that?gave?rise?to?the?injury.?(Perez?v.?Van?Groningen?&?Sons,?Inc.,?supra,?41?Cal.3d?at?p.?967;?5?Harper?et?al.,?op.?cit.?supra,???26.5,?at?p.?21.)
[2]?For?the?doctrine?of?respondeat?superior?to?apply,?the?plaintiff?must?prove?that?the?employee’s?tortious?conduct?was?committed?within?the?scope?of?employment.?(Ducey?v.?Argo?Sales?Co.?(1979)25?Cal.3d?707,?721?[159?Cal.Rptr.?835,?602?P.2d?755].)?”A?risk?arises?out?of?the?employment?when?’in?the?context?of?the?particular?enterprise?an?employee’s?conduct?is?not?so?unusual?or?startling?that?it?would?seem?unfair?to?include?the?loss?resulting?from?it?among?other?costs?of?the?employer’s?business.?[Citations.]?In?other?words,?where?the?question?is?one?of?vicarious?liability,?the?inquiry?should?be?whether?the?risk?was?one?”that?may?fairly?be?regarded?as?typical?of?or?broadly?incidental”?to?the?enterprise?undertaken?by?the?employer.?[Citation.]’?”?(Perez?v.?Van?Groningen?&?Sons,?Inc.,?supra,?41?Cal.3d?at?p.?968,?citing?Rodgers?v.?Kemper?Constr.?Co.,?supra,?50?Cal.App.3d?at?p.?619,?brackets?in?original.)Tortious?conduct?that?violates?an?employee’s?official?duties?or?disregards?the?employer’s?express?orders?may?nonetheless?be?within?the?scope?of?employment.?(Perez?v.?Van?Groningen?&?Sons,?Inc.,?supra,?41?Cal.3d?at?p.?969;?Meyer?v.?Blackman?(1963)?59?Cal.2d?668,?679?[31?Cal.Rptr.?36,?381?P.2d?916];?Van?Alstyne,?Cal.?Government?Tort?Liability?Practice?(Cont.Ed.Bar?1980)???2.22,?p.?62.)?So?may?acts?that?do?not?benefit?the?employer?(Perez,?supra,?41?Cal.3d?at?p.?969),?or?are?willful?or?malicious?in?nature?(John?R.?v.?Oakland?Unified?School?Dist.?(1989)?48?Cal.3d?438,?447?[256?Cal.Rptr.?766,?769?P.2d?948];?Martinez?v.?Hagopian?(1986)?182?Cal.App.3d?1223,?1227?[227?Cal.Rptr.?763]).
[3]?The?doctrine?of?respondeat?superior?applies?to?public?and?private?employers?alike.?As?stated?in?subdivision?(a)?of?Government?Code?section?815.2?(all?further?statutory?references?are?to?the?Government?Code):?”A?public?entity?is?liable?for?injury?proximately?caused?by?an?act?or?omission?of?an?employee?of?the?public?entity?within?the?scope?of?his?employment?if?the?act?or?omission?would,?apart?from?this?section,?have?given?rise?to?a?cause?of?action?against?that?employee?or?his?personal?representative.”?By?this?language,?the?Legislature?incorporated?”general?standards?of?tort?liability?as?the?[54?Cal.3d?210]?primary?basis?for?respondeat?superior?liability?of?public?entities.?…”?(Van?Alstyne,?op.?cit.?supra,???2.32,?at?p.?77.)?Courts?have?construed?the?term?”scope?of?employment”?in?section?815.2?as?broadly?as?in?private?tort?litigation.?(Van?Alstyne,?op.?cit.?supra,???2.32,?at?p.?79;?see?generally,?John?R.?v.?Oakland?Unified?School?Dist.,?supra,?48?Cal.3d?at?p.?447.)?B.?California?Decisions?Discussing?Public?Employer?Liability?for?Sexually?Assaultive?Conduct?by?PoliceWhen?the?Court?of?Appeal?decided?this?case,?only?one?published?decision?in?this?state?had?addressed?the?issue?of?whether?a?law?enforcement?officer?who?commits?a?sexual?assault?while?on?duty?can?be?deemed?to?have?acted?within?the?scope?of?employment.?In?White?v.?County?of?Orange?(1985)?166?Cal.App.3d?566?[212?Cal.Rptr.?493],?a?deputy?sheriff?detained?a?female?motorist?late?at?night,?placed?her?in?the?back?of?his?patrol?car,?drove?her?around?for?hours?in?an?isolated?area,?and?repeatedly?threatened?to?rape?and?kill?her.?When?she?promised?to?go?out?with?him?that?weekend,?he?returned?her?to?her?car.?After?she?drove?away,?he?again?stopped?her,?this?time?to?obtain?a?”goodnight?kiss.”?Based?on?this?entire?incident,?the?officer?was?convicted?of?kidnapping?and?false?imprisonment.
Thereafter,?the?motorist?brought?a?civil?suit?against?the?officer’s?employer,?the?County?of?Orange,?on?a?theory?of?vicarious?liability.?The?trial?court?granted?the?county’s?motion?for?summary?judgment;?the?Court?of?Appeal?reversed.?The?appellate?court?observed?that?an?officer?is?entrusted?with?a?substantial?degree?of?authority,?and?that?the?motorist?submitted?to?that?authority,?stopping?her?car?solely?because?the?officer?had?ordered?her?to?do?so.?Accordingly,?the?court?held,?the?officer’s?wrongful?acts?”flowed?from?the?very?exercise?of?this?authority,”?and?the?county?could?be?held?liable?for?the?officer’s?conduct.?(White?v.?County?of?Orange,?supra,?166?Cal.App.3d?at?pp.?571-572.)
Recently,?this?court?had?occasion?to?examine?White?in?John?R.?v.?Oakland?Unified?School?Dist.,?supra,?48?Cal.3d?438?(hereafter?John?R.),?which?involved?the?application?of?respondeat?superior?in?a?different?context.?In?John?R.,?a?junior?high?school?student?sued?the?school?district,?alleging?he?had?been?sexually?molested?by?his?teacher?while?at?the?teacher’s?apartment?as?part?of?an?officially?sanctioned,?extracurricular?program.?The?trial?court?ruled?that?the?school?district?could?not?be?held?vicariously?liable?for?the?molestation,?and?granted?the?district’s?motion?for?nonsuit.?We?upheld?the?trial?court’s?ruling.?[54?Cal.3d?211]
The?lead?opinionfn.?2?in?John?R.?did?not?consider?whether?the?case?was?factually?similar?to?other?cases?in?which?employers?had?been?held?liable?for?the?tortious?acts?of?their?employees.?Instead,?it?focused?on?the?rationale?underlying?the?imposition?of?such?liability:?to?prevent?recurrence?of?the?tortious?conduct,?to?give?greater?assurance?of?compensation?for?the?victim,?and?to?ensure?that?the?victim’s?losses?will?be?equitably?borne?by?those?who?benefit?from?the?enterprise?that?gave?rise?to?the?injury.?(Perez?v.?Van?Groningen?&?Sons,?Inc.,?supra,?41?Cal.3d?at?p.?967.)?After?evaluating?these?three?factors,?the?lead?opinion?in?John?R.?concluded?that?imposition?of?liability?against?the?teacher’s?employer?was?not?warranted.?(John?R.,?supra,?48?Cal.3d?at?p.?452.)?Although?the?opinion?declined?to?determine?whether?White?v.?County?of?Orange,?supra,?166?Cal.App.3d?566,?was?correctly?decided,?it?suggested?that?the?policy?reasons?underlying?the?doctrine?of?respondeat?superior?would?justify?its?application?when?a?police?officer?uses?his?authority?to?enable?him?to?commit?a?sexual?assault.?(John?R.,?supra,?48?Cal.3d?at?p.?452.)
The?City?contends?that?White?v.?County?of?Orange,?supra,?166?Cal.App.3d?566,?was?wrongly?decided,?and?that?a?police?officer’s?act?of?rape,?even?when?preceded?by?an?assertion?of?authority,?is?outside?the?scope?of?his?employment?as?a?matter?of?law.?Before?addressing?the?merits?of?this?contention,?we?first?consider?whether?the?doctrine?of?invited?error?precludes?the?City?from?asserting?it.
- Application?of?Invited?Error?Doctrine
In?this?case,?the?trial?court?instructed?the?jury,?based?on?White?v.?County?of?Orange,?supra,?166?Cal.App.3d?566,?that?when?”a?police?officer?who,?as?a?result?of?the?exercise?of?his?authority,?legally?causes?injury,”?the?employer?may?be?held?liable?regardless?of?the?employer’s?rules?or?knowledge?of?the?wrongful?conduct,?and?regardless?of?whether?the?employer?or?the?employee?benefited?from?the?act?itself.fn.?3?Because?the?record?indicated?that?the?City?had?requested?the?instruction,?we?solicited?briefing?from?the?parties?to?determine?whether?the?doctrine?of?invited?error?should?bar?the?City?from?contending?[54?Cal.3d?212]?that,?as?a?matter?of?law,?Sergeant?Schroyer?was?acting?outside?the?scope?of?his?employment?when?he?raped?plaintiff.
The?record?shows?that?the?instruction?was?proposed?under?the?following?circumstances.?Throughout?the?proceedings?in?this?matter,?the?City?challenged?the?decision?in?White?v.?County?of?Orange,?supra,?166?Cal.App.3d?566.?The?trial?court?correctly?considered?itself?to?be?bound?by?the?appellate?court’s?decision?in?White.?(See?Auto?Equity?Sales,?Inc.?v.?Superior?Court?(1962)?57?Cal.2d?450,?455?[20?Cal.Rptr.?321,?369?P.2d?937].)?At?the?instruction?conference,?the?court?told?the?parties?that?notwithstanding?the?City’s?objections,?it?would?instruct?the?jury?in?accordance?with?White,?and?that?unless?the?City?proffered?an?alternative?instruction?it?would?give?plaintiff’s?proposed?instruction,?which?was?based?on?White.?The?City?then?submitted,?and?the?court?gave,?the?instruction?quoted?above.
Immediately?after?the?case?was?submitted?to?the?jury,?the?trial?court?gave?the?parties?an?opportunity?to?”tie?up?any?loose?ends”?relating?to?any?matter?that?had?not?yet?been?”put?on?the?record.”?Counsel?for?the?City?then?explained?the?circumstances?which?led?it?to?submit?the?instruction?at?issue:?”[D]uring?our?many,?many?hours?of?discussions?concerning?jury?instructions,?I?did?indicate?to?the?court?that?we?did?not?believe?that?White?was?an?appropriate?case?with?which?the?jury?should?be?instructed?as?it?was?…?not?an?appropriate?statement?of?the?law.?[?]?The?court?indicated?that?it?would?follow?White?and?unless?I?wanted?Plaintiff’s?instructions?to?be?the?ones?to?go?to?the?jury,?I?would?be?requested?to?draft?an?instruction?based?upon?the?language?in?White.?[?]?In?response?to?that,?the?defense?submitted?an?instruction?based?upon?White?which?the?court?…?read?to?the?jury.?[?]?For?the?record,?I?would?like?it?to?be?clear?that?we?do?not?believe?that?White?is?the?authority?that?should?be?followed?and?that?we?objected?to?giving?any?instructions?in?accordance?with?the?White?case,?albeit,?we?did?submit?an?instruction?based?upon?the?court’s?request.”?The?trial?court?agreed?with?counsel’s?account,?but?pointed?out?that?the?precise?wording?of?the?instruction?was?the?City’s.
[4]?Under?the?doctrine?of?invited?error,?when?a?party?by?its?own?conduct?induces?the?commission?of?error,?it?may?not?claim?on?appeal?that?the?judgment?should?be?reversed?because?of?that?error.?(People?v.?Perez?(1979)?23?Cal.3d?545,?549-550,?fn.?3?[153?Cal.Rptr.?40,?591?P.2d?63];?Jentick?v.?Pacific?Gas?&?Elec.?Co.?(1941)?18?Cal.2d?117?[114?P.2d?343];?9?Witkin,?Cal.?Procedure?(3d?ed.?1985)?Appeal,???301,?p.?313.)?But?the?doctrine?does?not?apply?when?a?party,?while?making?the?appropriate?objections,?acquiesces?in?a?judicial?determination.?(People?v.?Perez,?supra,?23?Cal.3d?at?p.?550,?fn.?3.)?As?this?court?has?explained:?”?’An?attorney?who?submits?to?the?authority?of?an?erroneous,?adverse?ruling?after?making?appropriate?objections?or?motions,?[54?Cal.3d?213]?does?not?waive?the?error?in?the?ruling?by?proceeding?in?accordance?therewith?and?endeavoring?to?make?the?best?of?a?bad?situation?for?which?he?was?not?responsible.’?”?(People?v.?Calio?(1986)?42?Cal.3d?639,?643?[230?Cal.Rptr.?137,?724?P.2d?1162],?quoting?Leibman?v.?Curtis?(1955)?138?Cal.App.2d?222,?225?[291?P.2d?542].)Here,?the?City?did?not?invite?the?trial?court?to?instruct?the?jury?that?liability?for?a?sexual?assault?can?arise?from?a?police?officer’s?exercise?of?official?authority.?To?the?contrary,?it?took?the?opposite?position?throughout?the?case,?including?the?instruction?conference.?The?City?never?induced?the?trial?court?to?follow?White?v.?County?of?Orange,?supra,?166?Cal.App.3d?566;?it?merely?acquiesced-after?objecting-to?the?court’s?decision?to?instruct?in?accordance?with?White,?and?submitted?an?instruction?in?accordance?with?that?decision.fn.?4?Although?the?City?would?be?barred?from?attacking?the?specific?language?of?the?jury?instruction?it?submitted,?it?is,?under?the?circumstances?of?this?case,?not?precluded?from?asserting?that?White?v.?County?of?Orange,?supra,?166?Cal.App.3d?566,?was?erroneously?decided?and?that,?as?a?matter?of?law,?the?evidence?presented?here?established?that?Sergeant?Schroyer?acted?outside?the?scope?of?his?employment?when?he?raped?plaintiff.fn.?5
- Imposition?of?Liability?in?This?Case
We?do?not?agree.?As?we?shall?explain,?Sergeant?Schroyer’s?conduct?was?not?so?divorced?from?his?work?that,?as?a?matter?of?law,?it?was?outside?the?scope?of?employment.?Rather,?the?question?of?whether?Sergeant?Schroyer?acted?within?the?scope?of?his?employment?was?one?properly?left?for?the?jury?to?decide.
As?we?mentioned?earlier,?the?test?for?determining?whether?an?employee?is?acting?outside?the?scope?of?employment?is?whether?”?’in?the?context?of?the?particular?enterprise?an?employee’s?conduct?is?not?so?unusual?or?startling?that?it?would?seem?unfair?to?include?the?loss?resulting?from?it?among?other?costs?of?the?employer’s?business.’?”?(Perez?v.?Van?Groningen?&?Sons,?Inc.,?supra,?41?Cal.3d?at?p.?968.)?To?assist?us?in?that?determination,?we?first?consider?whether?the?three?policy?objectives?underlying?respondeat?superior?would?be?achieved?by?applying?the?doctrine?when?a?police?officer?on?duty?misuses?his?official?authority?and?commits?an?act?of?rape.?The?lead?opinion?in?John?R.,?supra,?48?Cal.3d?438,?concluded?that?because?under?the?facts?of?that?case?application?of?respondeat?superior?would?not?further?the?doctrine’s?underlying?rationale,?it?should?not?be?invoked.?That?is?not?the?case?here.
[7]?The?first?of?the?three?policy?objectives?supporting?the?application?of?respondeat?superior?is?that?imposing?liability?on?the?employer?may?prevent?recurrence?of?the?tortious?conduct,?because?it?”creates?a?strong?incentive?for?vigilance?by?those?in?a?position?’to?guard?substantially?against?the?evil?to?be?prevented.’?”?(Pacific?Mut.?Life?Ins.?Co.?v.?Haslip,?supra,?499?U.S.?at?p.?___?[113?L.Ed.2d?at?p.?17,?111?S.Ct.?at?p.?1041],?quoting?an?earlier?case.)?In?John?R.,?the?lead?opinion?concluded?that?this?policy?did?not?support?the?imposition?of?liability?on?the?school?district?whose?teacher?committed?sexual?misconduct?because?the?preventive?measures?that?the?employer?could?be?forced?to?take?would?do?more?harm?than?good.?To?impose?vicarious?liability?in?that?situation,?the?opinion?explained,?”would?be?far?too?likely?to?deter?districts?from?encouraging,?or?even?authorizing,?extracurricular?and/or?one-on-one?contacts?between?teachers?and?students?or?to?induce?districts?to?impose?such?rigorous?controls?on?activities?of?this?nature?that?the?educational?process?would?be?negatively?affected.”?(John?R.,?supra,?48?Cal.3d?at?p.?451.)By?contrast,?imposition?of?liability?here?would?not?be?likely?to?cause?public?entities?to?take?preventive?measures?that?would?impair?the?effectiveness?of?law?enforcement?activities.?As?the?lead?opinion?in?John?R.?said:?”We?[54?Cal.3d?215]?doubt?that?police?departments?would?deprive?their?officers?of?weapons?or?preclude?them?from?enforcing?the?laws?….”?(John?R.,?supra,?48?Cal.3d?at?p.?452.)
The?imposition?of?liability?on?public?entities?whose?law?enforcement?officers?commit?sexual?assaults?while?on?duty?would?encourage?the?employers?to?take?preventive?measures.fn.?7?There?is?little?or?no?risk?that?preventive?measures?would?significantly?interfere?with?the?ability?of?police?departments?to?enforce?the?law?and?to?protect?society?from?criminal?acts.?We?therefore?conclude?that?the?first?policy?basis?for?respondeat?superior-encouraging?the?employer?to?take?measures?to?prevent?recurrence?of?the?tortious?conduct-supports?the?jury’s?verdict?against?the?City?in?this?case.fn.?8
We?now?consider?the?second?reason?underlying?the?application?of?respondeat?superior:?to?give?greater?assurance?of?compensation?to?the?victim.?[8]?The?Legislature?has?recognized?that?the?imposition?of?vicarious?liability?on?a?public?employer?is?an?appropriate?method?to?ensure?that?victims?of?police?misconduct?are?compensated.?It?has?done?so?by?declining?to?grant?immunity?to?public?entities?when?their?police?officers?engage?in?violent?conduct.?Since?the?enactment?of?the?California?Tort?Claims?Act?in?1963?(??810?et?seq.),?a?governmental?entity?can?be?held?vicariously?liable?when?a?police?officer?acting?in?the?course?and?scope?of?employment?uses?excessive?force?or?engages?in?assaultive?conduct.?(City?of?Los?Angeles?v.?Superior?Court?(1973)?33?Cal.App.3d?778,?782?[109?Cal.Rptr.?365];?Larson?v.?City?of?[54?Cal.3d?216]?Oakland?(1971)?17?Cal.App.3d?91,?98?[94?Cal.Rptr.?466];?Scruggs?v.?Haynes?(1967)?252?Cal.App.2d?256,?268?[60?Cal.Rptr.?355];?Griffith?v.?City?of?Monrovia?(1982)?134?Cal.App.3d?Supp.?6?[184?Cal.Rptr.?709];?see?also?Jones?v.?City?of?Los?Angeles?(1963)?215?Cal.App.2d?155?[30?Cal.Rptr.?124].)?The?decisions?cited?have?recognized,?at?least?implicitly,?that?vicarious?liability?is?an?appropriate?method?to?ensure?that?victims?of?police?misconduct?are?compensated.fn.?9
The?only?difference?between?those?cases?and?the?one?now?before?us?is?that?here?the?assault?victim?was?raped?rather?than?beaten.?Surely?the?victim’s?need?for?compensation?in?this?instance?is?as?great?as?in?other?cases?of?violent?tortious?conduct?by?a?police?officer?while?on?duty.?Accordingly,?the?second?policy?objective?of?the?doctrine?of?respondeat?superior?supports?the?jury’s?verdict?imposing?liability?on?the?City.
[9]?Finally,?the?third?policy?consideration-the?appropriateness?of?spreading?the?risk?of?loss?among?the?beneficiaries?of?the?enterprise-also?favors?the?imposition?of?vicarious?liability?against?the?City.?Here,?too,?John?R.?is?instructive.?The?lead?opinion?recognized?that?school?districts?and?the?community?at?large?benefit?from?the?authority?that?teachers?are?given?over?students,?but?it?concluded?that?the?connection?between?that?authority?and?a?teacher’s?sexual?abuse?of?a?student?was?”simply?too?attenuated?to?deem?a?sexual?assault?as?falling?within?the?range?of?risks?allocable?to?a?teacher’s?employer,”?and?thus?did?not?support?vicarious?liability?in?that?context.?(John?R.,?supra,?48?Cal.3d?at?p.?452.)?The?opinion?contrasted?the?difference?in?authority,?”in?both?degree?and?kind,”?between?a?teacher?and?a?police?officer:?”[T]he?authority?of?a?police?officer?over?a?motorist-bolstered?most?immediately?by?his?uniform,?badge?and?firearm,?and?only?slightly?less?so?by?the?prospect?of?criminal?sanctions?for?disobedience-plainly?surpasses?that?of?a?teacher?over?a?student.”?(Ibid.)At?the?outset,?we?observed?that?society?has?granted?police?officers?extraordinary?power?and?authority?over?its?citizenry.?An?officer?who?detains?an?individual?is?acting?as?the?official?representative?of?the?state,?with?all?of?its?coercive?power.?As?visible?symbols?of?that?power,?an?officer?is?given?a?distinctively?marked?car,?a?uniform,?a?badge,?and?a?gun.?As?one?court?commented,?”police?officers?[exercise]?the?most?awesome?and?dangerous?power?that?a?democratic?state?possesses?with?respect?to?its?residents-the?power?to?use?lawful?force?to?arrest?and?detain?them.”?(Policeman’s?Benev.?Ass’n?of?N.J.?v.?Washington?Tp.?(3d?Cir.?1988)?850?F.2d?133,?141.)?Inherent?in?[54?Cal.3d?217]?this?formidable?power?is?the?potential?for?abuse.?The?cost?resulting?from?misuse?of?that?power?should?be?borne?by?the?community,?because?of?the?substantial?benefits?that?the?community?derives?from?the?lawful?exercise?of?police?power.
As?demonstrated,?each?of?the?three?policy?reasons?supports?the?imposition?of?vicarious?liability?on?the?employer?of?a?police?officer?who,?while?on?duty,?commits?a?sexual?assault?by?misusing?his?official?authority.?[6b]?The?City?nevertheless?maintains?that?a?police?officer?who?commits?rape?while?on?duty?can?never?be?acting?within?the?scope?of?his?employment?because?the?conduct?is?so?unusual?that?to?impose?liability?on?the?officer’s?employer?in?that?instance?would?be?unfair.
The?City?relies?on?our?decision?in?Perez?v.?Van?Groningen?&?Sons,?Inc.,?supra,?41?Cal.3d?962.?In?that?case,?the?defendant?employer?assigned?an?employee?to?drive?a?tractor?through?an?orchard?while?pulling?a?disking?attachment.?The?employee?invited?his?nephew?to?ride?with?him.?A?branch?knocked?the?nephew?off?the?tractor?and?into?the?disking?attachment.?We?held?that?the?employee?was?acting?within?the?scope?of?his?employment,?and?therefore?the?employer?could?be?held?liable?for?the?employee’s?negligent?acts.?We?explained:?”A?risk?arises?out?of?the?employment?when?’in?the?context?of?the?particular?enterprise?an?employee’s?conduct?is?not?so?unusual?or?startling?that?it?would?seem?unfair?to?include?the?loss?resulting?from?it?among?other?costs?of?the?employer’s?business.?…?[T]he?inquiry?should?be?whether?the?risk?was?one?”that?may?fairly?be?regarded?as?typical?of?or?broadly?incidental”?to?the?enterprise?undertaken?by?the?employer.?[Citation.]’?”?(Perez?v.?Van?Groningen?&?Sons,?Inc.,?supra,?41?Cal.3d?at?p.?968,?italics?added.)?Seizing?on?the?italicized?language,?the?City?contends?that?the?tortious?act-rape-committed?by?Sergeant?Schroyer?is?so?”unusual?or?startling”?that?it?cannot?”fairly?be?regarded?as?typical?of?or?broadly?incidental”?to?the?task?of?law?enforcement.?We?disagree.
As?noted?previously,?society?has?granted?police?officers?great?power?and?control?over?criminal?suspects.?Officers?may?detain?such?persons?at?gunpoint,?place?them?in?handcuffs,?remove?them?from?their?residences,?order?them?into?police?cars?and,?in?some?circumstances,?may?even?use?deadly?force.?The?law?permits?police?officers?to?ensure?their?own?safety?by?frisking?persons?they?have?detained,?thereby?subjecting?detainees?to?a?form?of?nonconsensual?touching?ordinarily?deemed?highly?offensive?in?our?society.?(Terry?v.?Ohio?(1968)?392?U.S.?1?[20?L.Ed.2d?889,?88?S.Ct.?1868].)?In?view?of?the?considerable?power?and?authority?that?police?officers?possess,?it?is?neither?startling?nor?unexpected?that?on?occasion?an?officer?will?misuse?that?authority?by?engaging?in?assaultive?conduct.?The?precise?circumstances?of?the?assault?need?not?be?anticipated,?so?long?as?the?risk?is?one?that?is?reasonably?[54?Cal.3d?218]?foreseeable.?Sexual?assaults?by?police?officers?are?fortunately?uncommon;?nevertheless,?the?risk?of?such?tortious?conduct?is?broadly?incidental?to?the?enterprise?of?law?enforcement,?and?thus?liability?for?such?acts?may?appropriately?be?imposed?on?the?employing?public?entity.fn.?10
In?arguing?against?such?liability,?the?City?relies?on?Alma?W.?v.?Oakland?Unified?School?Dist.,?supra,?123?Cal.App.3d?133.?There,?the?Court?of?Appeal?upheld?a?trial?court’s?ruling?that?a?school?district?could?not?be?held?vicariously?liable?for?the?sexual?molestation?of?an?11-year-old?child?by?a?school?custodian?on?school?grounds.?As?the?court?observed,?”There?is?no?aspect?of?a?janitor’s?duties?that?would?make?sexual?assault?anything?other?than?highly?unusual?and?very?startling.”?(Id.?at?p.?143.)?By?contrast,?the?very?nature?of?law?enforcement?employment?requires?exertion?of?physical?control?over?persons?whom?an?officer?has?detained?or?arrested.?The?authority?to?use?force?when?necessary?in?securing?compliance?with?the?law?is?fundamental?to?a?police?officer’s?duties?in?maintaining?the?public?order.?(Nat.?Advisory?Com.?on?Crim.?Justice?Stds.?and?Goals,?Police?(1973)?p.?18.)?That?authority?carries?with?it?the?risk?of?abuse.?The?danger?that?an?officer?will?commit?a?sexual?assault?while?on?duty?arises?from?the?considerable?authority?and?control?inherent?in?the?responsibilities?of?an?officer?in?enforcing?the?law.?Those?responsibilities?do?not?at?all?resemble?the?duties?of?a?school?custodian,?as?involved?in?Alma?W.,?supra.fn.?11
The?City?argues?that?when?Sergeant?Schroyer?raped?plaintiff,?he?was?not?acting?in?the?course?of?his?employment,?but?was?primarily?pursuing?his?own?interests.?[10]?In?Hinman?v.?Westinghouse?Elec.?Co.,?supra,?2?Cal.3d?at?page?960,?we?said?that?those?cases?that?have?considered?recovery?against?an?employer?for?injuries?occurring?within?the?scope?and?during?the?period?of?employment?have?established?a?general?rule?of?liability?”with?a?few?exceptions”?in?instances?where?the?employee?has?”substantially?deviated?from?his?duties?for?personal?purposes.”
To?determine?whether?a?particular?set?of?facts?falls?into?one?of?those?”few?exceptions,”?it?is?necessary?to?examine?the?employees’?conduct?as?a?whole,?[54?Cal.3d?219]?not?simply?the?tortious?act?itself.?(See,?e.g.,?Carr?v.?Wm.?C.?Crowell?Co.?(1946)?28?Cal.2d?652?[171?P.2d?5]?[employee?who?threw?a?hammer?at?another?employee?after?a?dispute?held?to?have?acted?within?the?scope?of?employment].)?”?’The?fact?that?an?employee?is?not?engaged?in?the?ultimate?object?of?his?employment?at?the?time?of?his?wrongful?act?does?not?preclude?attribution?of?liability?to?an?employer.’?”?(John?R.,?supra,?48?Cal.3d?at?p.?447,?quoting?Alma?W.?v.?Oakland?Unified?School?Dist.,?supra,?123?Cal.App.3d?at?p.?139.)?As?we?said?in?Perez?v.?Van?Groningen?&?Sons,?Inc.,?supra,?41?Cal.3d?at?page?970:?”[T]he?proper?inquiry?is?not?’?”whether?the?wrongful?act?itself?was?authorized?but?whether?it?was?committed?in?the?course?of?a?series?of?acts?of?the?agent?which?were?authorized?by?the?principal.”?’?”
[6]?Here,?Sergeant?Schroyer?was?acting?within?the?scope?of?his?employment?when?he?detained?plaintiff?for?erratic?driving,?when?he?ordered?her?to?get?out?of?her?car?and?to?perform?a?field?sobriety?test,?and?when?he?ordered?her?to?get?in?his?police?car.?Then,?misusing?his?authority?as?a?law?enforcement?officer,?he?drove?her?to?her?home,?where?he?raped?her.?When?plaintiff?attempted?to?resist?Sergeant?Schroyer’s?criminal?conduct,?he?continued?to?assert?his?authority?by?threatening?to?take?her?to?jail.?Viewing?the?transaction?as?a?whole,?it?cannot?be?said?that,?as?a?matter?of?law,?Sergeant?Schroyer?was?acting?outside?the?scope?of?his?employment?when?he?raped?plaintiff.The?City?cites?authorities?from?other?jurisdictions?in?arguing?that?it?should?not?be?held?vicariously?liable?when?a?police?officer?in?its?employ?commits?a?sexual?assault?while?on?duty.?Those?decisions,?however,?do?not?support?the?City’s?position?in?this?case.?In?one?case?cited?by?the?City?(Lyon?v.?Carey?(D.C.?Cir.?1976)?533?F.2d?649?[174?App.D.C.?422]),?the?court?upheld?a?verdict?finding?an?employer?liable?under?the?doctrine?of?respondeat?superior.?In?that?case,?a?delivery?man?brought?a?mattress?to?the?plaintiff’s?home?and,?following?a?dispute?over?the?manner?of?payment?for?the?delivery,?physically?and?sexually?assaulted?her.?Concluding?that?the?jury?could?have?reasonably?found?that?the?delivery?man’s?tortious?conduct?arose?out?of?the?delivery?dispute,?the?federal?appellate?court?upheld?the?jury’s?verdict?imposing?liability?on?the?man’s?employer.?(Id.?at?p.?655.)
Other?decisions?relied?on?by?the?City?are?distinguishable?because?they?involved?sexual?assaults?by?private?security?guards.?(Heindel?v.?Bowery?Savings?Bank?(1988)?138?A.D.2d?787?[525?N.Y.S.2d?428];?Webb?by?Harris?v.?Jewel?Companies,?Inc.?(1985)?137?Ill.App.3d?1004?[485?N.E.2d?409];?Rabon?v.?Guardsmark,?Inc.?(4th?Cir.?1978)?571?F.2d?1277?[diversity?case?applying?South?Carolina?law].)?Because?such?persons?do?not?act?as?official?representatives?of?the?state,?any?authority?they?have?is?different?from,?and?far?less?than,?that?conferred?upon?an?officer?of?the?law.?Still?other?cases?relied?on?by?[54?Cal.3d?220]?the?City?are?distinguishable?because?they?involved?sexual?assaults?by?police?officers?who?were?not?on?duty?when?they?committed?the?sexual?assaults.?(Bates?v.?Doria?(1986)?150?Ill.App.3d?1025?[502?N.E.2d?454];?Gambling?v.?Cornish?(N.D.Ill.?1977)?426?F.Supp.?1153.)
By?contrast,?the?facts?of?Applewhite?v.?City?of?Baton?Rouge?(La.Ct.App.?1979)?380?So.2d?119?more?closely?resemble?those?of?this?case.?There,?the?City?of?Baton?Rouge?was?held?vicariously?liable?when?one?of?its?police?officers?detained?a?teenage?girl?for?vagrancy?while?she?was?walking?with?friends,?ordered?her?into?his?police?car?to?be?taken?to?jail,?then?took?her?to?another?location?where?he?forced?her?to?engage?in?acts?of?sexual?intercourse?and?oral?copulation.
In?arriving?at?its?conclusion,?the?court?in?Applewhite?v.?City?of?Baton?Rouge,?supra,?380?So.2d?119,?explained?why?it?was?appropriate?to?impose?vicarious?liability?on?the?employers?of?police?officers?who?commit?sexual?assaults:?”We?particularly?note?that?[the?officer]?was?on?duty?in?uniform?and?armed,?and?was?operating?a?police?unit?at?the?time?of?this?incident.?He?was?able?to?separate?the?plaintiff?from?her?companions?because?of?the?force?and?authority?of?the?position?which?he?held.?He?took?her?into?police?custody?and?then?committed?the?sexual?abuses?upon?her?in?the?vehicle?provided?for?his?use?by?his?employer.?[?]?A?police?officer?is?a?public?servant?given?considerable?public?trust?and?authority.?…?[W]here?excesses?are?committed?by?such?officers,?their?employers?are?held?to?be?responsible?for?their?actions?even?though?those?actions?may?be?somewhat?removed?from?their?usual?duties.?This?is?unquestionably?the?case?because?of?the?position?of?such?officers?in?our?society.”?(Id.?at?p.?121;?see?also?Turner?v.?State?(La.Ct.App.?1986)?494?So.2d?1292?[state?held?vicariously?liable?when?National?Guard?recruiter?told?four?applicants?to?undress?for?physical?exam,?then?molested?them].)
The?City?has?also?cited?two?federal?decisions,?City?of?Green?Cove?Springs?v.?Donaldson?(5th?Cir.?1965)?348?F.2d?197,?and?Bates?v.?United?States?(8th?Cir.?1983)?701?F.2d?737,?which?concluded?that?under?applicable?state?law?the?public?entity?involved?could?not?be?held?vicariously?liable?for?a?rape?committed?by?a?police?officer?on?duty.?Neither?decision?is?persuasive.?Each?failed?to?consider?the?significance?of?the?extraordinary?authority?wielded?by?law?enforcement?officers,?and?in?each?instance?the?federal?court?was?required?to?apply?state?law?that?is?materially?and?substantively?different?from?California?law.
The?final?case?cited?by?the?City,?Desotelle?v.?Continental?Cas.?Co.?(1986)?136?Wis.2d?13?[400?N.W.2d?524],?does?not?assist?the?City,?for?it?supports?our?conclusion?that?the?City?can?be?held?liable?in?this?case.?In?Desotelle,?the?court?[54?Cal.3d?221]?concluded?that?the?question?of?whether?an?officer?who?commits?a?sexual?assault?is?acting?in?the?scope?of?his?employment?is?one?of?fact,?and?the?court?upheld?a?determination?by?the?trier?of?fact?that?an?officer?acted?outside?that?scope?when?he?committed?a?sexual?assault.?(400?N.W.2d?at?pp.?529-530.)?Like?the?court?in?Desotelle,?we?reject?the?assertion?that?the?appellate?court?should?decide?as?a?matter?of?law?whether?a?law?enforcement?officer?who?commits?a?sexual?assault?is?acting?outside?the?scope?of?employment.?The?question?of?scope?of?employment?is?ordinarily?one?of?fact?for?the?jury?to?determine.
For?the?reasons?set?forth?above,?we?hold?that?when,?as?in?this?case,?a?police?officer?on?duty?misuses?his?official?authority?by?raping?a?woman?whom?he?has?detained,?the?public?entity?that?employs?him?can?be?held?vicariously?liable.?This?does?not?mean?that,?as?a?matter?of?law,?the?public?employer?is?vicariously?liable?whenever?an?on-duty?officer?commits?a?sexual?assault.?Rather,?this?is?a?question?of?fact?for?the?jury.?In?this?case,?plaintiff?presented?evidence?that?would?support?the?conclusion?that?the?rape?arose?from?misuse?of?official?authority.?Sergeant?Schroyer?detained?plaintiff?when?he?was?on?duty,?in?uniform,?and?armed.?He?accomplished?the?detention?by?activating?the?red?lights?on?his?patrol?car.?Taking?advantage?of?his?authority?and?control?as?a?law?enforcement?officer,?he?ordered?plaintiff?into?his?car?and?transported?her?to?her?home,?where?he?threw?her?on?a?couch.?When?plaintiff?screamed,?Sergeant?Schroyer?again?resorted?to?his?authority?and?control?as?a?police?officer?by?threatening?to?take?her?to?jail.?Based?on?these?facts,?the?jury?could?reasonably?conclude?that?Sergeant?Schroyer?was?acting?in?the?course?of?his?employment?when?he?sexually?assaulted?plaintiff.fn.?12
Conclusion
Our?society?has?entrusted?police?officers?with?enforcing?its?laws?and?ensuring?the?safety?of?the?lives?and?property?of?its?members.?In?carrying?out?these?important?responsibilities,?the?police?act?with?the?authority?of?the?state.?When?police?officers?on?duty?misuse?that?formidable?power?to?commit?sexual?assaults,?the?public?employer?must?be?held?accountable?for?their?actions.?”?’It?is,?after?all,?the?state?which?puts?the?officer?in?a?position?to?employ?force?and?which?benefits?from?its?use.’?”?(Thomas?v.?Johnson?(D.D.C.?[54?Cal.3d?222]?1968)?295?F.Supp.?1025,?1032,?quoting?Jaffe,?Suits?Against?Governments?and?Officers:?Damage?Actions?(1963)?77?Harv.L.Rev.?209,?229.)?The?judgment?of?the?Court?of?Appeal?is?reversed.?The?matter?is?remanded?to?the?Court?of?Appeal?for?further?proceedings?consistent?with?this?opinion.
Mosk,?J.,?Broussard,?J.,?and?Panelli,?J.,?concurred.
ARABIAN,?J.,
Concurring.
I?join?in?the?majority?opinion?but?write?separately?to?reflect?on?the?incremental?advance?today’s?holding?represents?in?the?effort?to?redress?the?historical?imbalance?between?victim?and?accused?in?sexual?assault?prosecutions.?By?its?very?nature,?rape?displays?a?”total?contempt?for?the?personal?integrity?and?autonomy”?of?the?victim;?”[s]hort?of?homicide,?[it?is]?the?’ultimate?violation?of?self.’?”?(Coker?v.?Georgia?(1977)?433?U.S.?584,?597,?603?[53?L.Ed.2d?982,?996,?97?S.Ct.?2861]?(plur.?opn.?of?White,?J.;?conc.?and?dis.?opn.?of?Powell,?J.).)?Along?with?other?forms?of?sexual?assault,?it?belongs?to?that?class?of?indignities?against?the?person?that?cannot?ever?be?fully?righted,?and?that?diminishes?all?humanity.
Some?16?years?ago,?in?People?v.?Rincon-Pineda?(1975)?14?Cal.3d?864?[123?Cal.Rptr.?119,?538?P.2d?247,?92?A.L.R.3d?845],?this?court?eliminated?from?our?law?one?of?the?more?egregious?evidentiary?biases?against?rape?victims?by?disapproving?the?use?of?Lord?Hale’s?dictumfn.?1?-embodied?in?then-CALJIC?No.?10.22?(3d?ed.?1970?bound?vol.)-that?rape?is?a?charge?easily?made?and?difficult?to?defend,?and?that?the?victim’s?testimony?should?be?viewed?”with?caution.”?(See?Arabian,?The?Cautionary?Instruction?in?Sex?Cases:?A?Lingering?Insult?(1978)?10?Sw.U.L.Rev.?585.)
Our?decision?in?that?case?helped?inaugurate?a?wave?of?reform?in?the?law?of?rape?and?other?forms?of?sexual?assault.?Acknowledging?the?reality?that?rape?victims?were?often?victimized?a?second?time?by?the?criminal?justice?system,?the?Legislature?enacted?one?of?the?nation’s?first?”rape?shield”?laws,?limiting?the?admissibility?of?evidence?of?a?complainant’s?sexual?history?except?under?narrowly?defined?conditions?and?prohibiting?an?instruction?that?an?”unchaste?woman”?is?more?likely?to?have?consented?to?sexual?intercourse.?(Stats.?1974,?ch.?569,?pp.?1388-1389;?Stats.?1974,?ch.?1093,?pp.?2320-2321;?Evid.?Code,????782,?1103;?Pen.?Code,???1127d;?see?People?v.?Blackburn?(1976)?56?Cal.App.3d?685?[128?Cal.Rptr.?864];?cf.?Michigan?v.?Lucas?(1991)?500?U.S.?___?[114?L.Ed.2d?205,?111?S.Ct.?1743].)
In?1978,?California?saw?the?birth?of?Penal?Code?section?289?(Stats.?1978,?ch.?1313,?p.?4300),?criminalizing?sexual?assaults?with?foreign?objects?and?[54?Cal.3d?223]?imposing?substantial?penalties?for?their?commission.?This?was?followed?in?1979?by?the?extension?of?California’s?substantive?rape?statute?to?encompass?rape?by?a?spouse?and?the?adoption?of?a?gender?neutral?definition?of?the?offense.?(Stats.?1979,?ch.?994,?pp.?3383-3385;?Pen.?Code,????261-264,?1127d.)?In?1980,?the?Legislature?eliminated?the?requirement?of?resistance?as?an?element?of?rape?(Stats.?1980,?ch.?587,?pp.?1595-1600;?Pen.?Code,????261-262,?667.5,?1203.06?et?seq.)?and?overruled?our?decision?in?Ballard?v.?Superior?Court?(1966)?64?Cal.2d?159?[49?Cal.Rptr.?302,?410?P.2d?838,?18?A.L.R.3d?1416],?by?prohibiting?trial?courts?from?ordering?a?psychiatric?examination?of?a?witness?or?victim?for?the?purpose?of?addressing?credibility?in?a?sexual?assault?prosecution.?(Stats.?1980,?ch.?16,?p.?63;?Pen.?Code,???1112;?see?People?v.?Barnes?(1986)?42?Cal.3d?284?[228?Cal.Rptr.?228,?721?P.2d?110];?People?v.?Haskett?(1982)?30?Cal.3d?841,?859,?fn.?8?[180?Cal.Rptr.?640,?640?P.2d?776].)?Also?in?1980,?California?became?the?first?state?to?recognize?the?value?of?protecting?from?disclosure?confidential?communications?between?sexual?assault?victims?and?therapists?by?enacting?the?sexual?assault?victim-counselor?evidentiary?privilege.?(Stats.?1980,?ch.?917,?pp.?2915-2921;?Evid.?Code,???1035?et?seq.)fn.?2?Several?other?states?have?since?enacted?a?similar?privilege.fn.?3
California,?of?course,?was?not?alone?in?these?efforts.?Notably,?the?Legislatures?of?Michigan?and?New?York?and?the?drafters?of?the?Model?Penal?Code?developed?reform-driven,?gender?neutral?sexual?offense?legislation;?other?jurisdictions?followed?suit?and?the?subject?became?”a?key?item?on?the?feminist?agenda?across?the?United?States?throughout?the?1970’s.”fn.?4?However,?this?mosaic?of?change?and?the?national?consciousness?it?reflects?should?not?erase?our?concern.?Over?the?past?generation,?the?incidence?of?forcible?rape?nationwide?has?climbed?at?a?disturbing?rate.?According?to?one?authoritative?source,?the?frequency?of?the?offense?in?the?United?States?has?doubled?over?the?past?twenty?years.fn.?5
Society’s?response?has?been?severe;?mandatory?prison?sentences?for?sexual?assault?offenders?and?consecutive?term?enhancements?for?rape?recidivists?(Pen.?Code,????667.5,?1203.065)?have?halted?many?potential?repeat?offenders.?[54?Cal.3d?224]?But?strengthened?criminal?sanctions?are?only?part?of?an?adequate?response.?Our?holding?today?advances?the?cause?of?reform?by?providing?a?meaningful?civil?remedy?to?the?victims?of?those?who?exploit?unique?institutional?prerogatives?to?facilitate?a?sexual?assault.
“All?rape?is?an?exercise?in?power,?but?some?rapists?have?an?edge?that?is?more?than?physical.”fn.?6A?police?officer?is?sworn?to?protect?and?to?serve.?In?the?pantheon?of?protection,?we?look?to?law?enforcement?officials?as?our?first?and?last?hope.?When?the?police?officer’s?special?edge-the?shield,?gun?and?baton,?the?aura?of?command?and?the?irresistible?power?of?arrest-is?employed?to?further?a?rape,?the?betrayal?suffered?by?the?victim?is?an?especially?bitter?one.
“The?bite?of?the?law,”?Justice?Frankfurter?wrote,?”is?in?its?enforcement.”fn.?7?That?maxim?was?never?better?served?than?here.?Given?the?proper?factual?showing?of?misuse?of?official?authority?in?the?commission?of?a?rape?by?a?police?officer,?it?is?fair?and?consistent?with?time-honored?principles?of?respondeat?superior?to?impose?liability?vicariously?on?the?public?entity?on?whose?account?the?officer?occupied?a?position?of?authority?and?trust,?and?for?the?folly?of?its?hire.
BAXTER,?J.,
Concurring.
I?concur?in?the?judgment.?The?City?of?Los?Angeles?(the?City)?requested?a?jury?instruction?that?virtually?guaranteed?it?would?be?held?liable?for?the?rape?by?Officer?Schroyer.?The?City?should?not?now?be?heard?to?complain?that?the?jury’s?verdict?was?erroneous.
I?respectfully?disagree,?however,?with?the?majority’s?reasoning?and?conclusion?on?the?substantive?question?of?vicarious?liability.?The?majority?presents?at?length?its?policy?views?on?why?governments?should?be?strictly?liable?for?the?crimes?of?their?police?officers.?However,?these?observations?are?largely?irrelevant.?The?Legislature?has?prohibited?such?liability?without?fault?except?where?a?public?employee?was?acting?”within?the?scope?of?…?employment.”?(Gov.?Code,???815.2,?subd.?(a).)?The?narrow?issue?in?this?case?is?whether?an?officer?who?deviates?from?duty?and?commits?criminal?acts?entirely?unrelated?to?his?law?enforcement?responsibilities?can?ever?be?deemed?”in?the?scope?of?…?employment.”?For?reasons?I?will?explain,?the?answer?to?that?question?is?”no.”?[54?Cal.3d?225]
Invited?Error
- The?rule?of?invited?error?should?bar?the?City’s?attack?on?the?jury’s?verdict.
Special?instruction?No.?3,?requested?by?the?City,?stated:?”An?employer?is?liable?for?the?wrongful?acts?of?a?police?officer?who,?as?a?result?of?the?exercise?of?his?authority,?legally?causes?injury?even?though?the?wrongful?acts?occurred?without?the?employer’s?knowledge,?were?not?related?to?the?duties?he?was?hired?to?perform,?were?not?for?the?benefit?of?employee,?and?were?done?in?violations?[sic]?of?the?employer’s?rules?or?grant?of?authority.”?A?reasonable?jury?faced?with?this?instruction?would?be?hard?pressed?not?to?find?vicarious?liability.?The?components?of?the?instruction?bear?emphasis.?The?jury?was?told?the?City?was?vicariously?liable?for?the?rape?by?Officer?Schroyer?even?if:
- It?occurred?without?the?City’s?knowledge;
- It?was?not?related?to?Officer?Schroyer’s?duties;
- It?was?not?for?the?City’s?benefit;
- It?was?solely?for?the?personal?benefit?of?Officer?Schroyer;?and
- It?violated?the?City’s?rules.
Under?the?City’s?jury?instruction,?almost?any?imaginable?form?of?police?misconduct?would?support?a?finding?of?vicarious?liability.?If,?for?example,?Officer?Schroyer?had?”exercise[d]?…?his?authority”?by?robbing?a?bank?while?on?duty,?his?misconduct?would?equally?have?met?the?criteria?for?vicarious?liability?set?forth?in?the?City’s?instruction.
The?City?acknowledges?the?well-established?rule?of?invited?error.?”Under?the?doctrine?of?’invited?error’?a?party?cannot?successfully?take?advantage?of?error?committed?by?the?court?at?his?request.”?(Jentick?v.?Pacific?Gas?&?Elec.?Co.?(1941)?18?Cal.2d?117,?121?[114?P.2d?343].)?The?rule?precludes?a?party?from?challenging?a?jury?instruction?if?he?proposed?it?or?a?similar?instruction.?(Ibid.;?Weirum?v.?RKO?General,?Inc.?(1975)?15?Cal.3d?40,?50?[123?Cal.Rptr.?468,?539?P.2d?36].)?The?City?does?not?dispute?that?special?instruction?No.?3?was?highly?unfavorable?to?the?City’s?own?position?at?trial.
The?City,?however,?contends?it?should?not?be?held?accountable?for?special?instruction?No.?3?because?the?City?was?merely?trying?to?”make?the?best?of?a?bad?situation.”?According?to?the?City,?the?trial?court?had?informed?counsel?for?[54?Cal.3d?226]?both?parties?that?it?would?instruct?the?jury?on?the?vicarious?liability?issue?pursuant?to?the?decision?in?White?v.?County?of?Orange?(1985)?166?Cal.App.3d?566?[212?Cal.Rptr.?493]?(White),?in?which?the?Court?of?Appeal?held?that?a?female?motorist?had?stated?a?valid?cause?of?action?for?vicarious?liability?against?a?county?based?on?an?alleged?sexual?assault?by?a?deputy?sheriff.?The?City?asserts?it?objected?on?two?grounds?to?an?instruction?proposed?by?plaintiff?under?White:?(1)?White?should?not?be?followed;?and?(2)?the?instruction?proposed?by?plaintiff?did?not?accurately?reflect?the?holding?in?White.?The?City?claims?the?trial?court?made?clear?its?intention?to?give?plaintiff’s?instruction?unless?the?City?submitted?its?own?instruction?under?White.?The?City?contends?it?should?therefore?be?excused?from?having?submitted?the?instruction?that?virtually?assured?an?unfavorable?verdict.
The?City’s?argument?on?this?point?is?flawed?in?two?key?respects.?First,?even?if?we?accept?as?true?the?City’s?recollection?of?the?facts,?the?City?failed?to?object?on?the?record?to?any?proposed?instruction?on?the?vicarious?liability?issue?until?after?the?jury?was?instructed.?A?party?must?not?be?allowed?to?submit?a?crucial?jury?instruction?and?then,?after?the?jury?has?been?instructed?and?retired?to?deliberate,?attempt?for?the?first?time?on?the?record?to?make?excuses?for?its?own?proposed?instruction.?Put?simply,?a?party?should?not?be?allowed?to?create?an?after-the-fact?objection?under?the?guise?of?”clarifying”?the?record.?It?is?hornbook?law?that?an?appellant?must?affirmatively?show?error?by?an?adequate?record.?(9?Witkin,?Cal.?Procedure?(3d?ed.?1985)?Appeal,???418,?pp.?415-416.)
Faced?with?a?dispute?over?jury?instructions,?the?City?should?have?provided?for?a?contemporaneous?record?of?the?discussions?between?counsel?and?the?trial?court.?Alternatively,?the?City?could?have?moved?under?rule?36(b)?of?the?California?Rules?of?Court?for?a?settled?statement?in?place?of?a?transcript?of?the?alleged?chambers?conference?regarding?jury?instructions.?(Lipka?v.?Lipka?(1963)60?Cal.2d?472,?480-481?[35?Cal.Rptr.?71,?386?P.2d?671]?[allowing?augmentation?of?record?to?include?unreported?chambers?conference].)?The?City?did?neither.?Accordingly,?the?record?does?not?show?that?the?City?made?a?timely?objection?to?the?proposed?instruction?on?vicarious?liability.
Second?and?equally?important,?the?majority?fails?to?grasp?the?fact?that?the?fatal?instruction?was?drafted?by?the?City.?When?the?City?first?raised?its?belated?objection?to?an?instruction?based?on?White,?supra,?166?Cal.App.3d?566,?the?trial?court?correctly?observed?that,?”Now,?however,?on?this?instruction?that?you?prepared,?and?which?you?felt?was?the?law?in?accordance?to?[sic]?White,?the?language?was?entirely?your?own?and?the?court?had?no?input?nor?did?plaintiff’s?counsel.”?Faced?with?an?instruction?it?did?not?like,?the?City?had?two?choices:?(1)?object?to?the?instruction?and?stand?on?its?objection?without?submitting?a?different?instruction;?or?(2)?object?to?plaintiff’s?instruction?and?[54?Cal.3d?227]?submit?an?alternative?one?that?the?City?believed?to?be?a?correct?statement?of?the?law.?A?party?may?not?submit?its?own?instruction?and?then?challenge?it?as?being?incorrect.?That?is?the?essence?of?the?invited-error?rule.?(Jentick?v.?Pacific?Gas?&?Elec.?Co.,?supra,?18?Cal.2d?117,?121.)
The?City?cites?no?authority?for?its?novel?proposition?that?the?City?may?challenge?its?own?instruction?as?an?attempt?”to?make?the?best?of?a?bad?situation.”?The?rule?is?to?the?contrary.?In?Jentick?v.?Pacific?Gas?&?Elec.?Co.,?supra,?18?Cal.2d?117,?the?court?rejected?the?vicariously?liable?defendant’s?argument?that?its?request?for?an?erroneous?instruction?was?not?willful.?”Defendant?may?not?avoid?the?application?of?the?doctrine?by?asserting?that?the?error?was?not?deliberately?or?willfully?induced.?The?good?faith?of?the?defendant?is?immaterial.?It?is?incumbent?upon?counsel?to?propose?instructions?that?do?not?mislead?a?jury?into?bringing?in?an?improper?verdict.?Whether?deliberate?or?not,?defendant’s?action?was?responsible?for?the?erroneous?instruction?and?verdict.?Defendant?must?therefore?accept?them?as?correct.”?(Id.,?at?p.?122.)?Either?the?same?result?should?obtain?in?this?case,?or?the?majority?should?forthrightly?overrule?Jentick.
- Reaching?the?merits?of?the?vicarious?liability?issue?serves?little?purpose?and?will?create?confusion.
Plaintiff?has?only?one?interest?in?this?court:?obtaining?an?affirmance?of?the?monetary?judgment?in?her?favor.?We?can,?and?should,?grant?her?that?relief?on?the?basis?of?the?City’s?invited?error?on?the?jury?instruction.?Any?discussion?of?whether?vicarious?liability?should?arise?in?future?cases?serves?no?purpose?for?plaintiff.?Yet?the?majority?insists?on?a?broad?and?potentially?mischievous?holding?that?local?governments?may?be?liable?without?fault?if?a?police?officer?commits?a?crime?that?is?somehow?related?to?the?authority?wielded?by?virtue?of?peace?officer?status.
One?must?keep?in?mind?the?precise?disposition?of?this?case.?The?verdict?against?the?City?was?returned?pursuant?to?an?instruction?that?the?City?was?vicariously?liable?for?the?rape?by?Officer?Schroyer?because?it?was?a?”result?of?the?exercise?of?his?authority,”?even?if?it?occurred?without?the?City’s?knowledge,?was?not?related?to?Officer?Schroyer’s?duties,?was?not?for?the?City’s?benefit,?was?solely?for?the?personal?benefit?of?Officer?Schroyer,?and?violated?the?City’s?rules.?There?is?no?claim?that?the?City?was?negligent?in?hiring?Schroyer?or?had?reason?to?know?that?he?might?take?advantage?of?his?position?of?authority?to?commit?rape.?The?sole?basis?on?which?the?City’s?liability?is?predicated?is?that?he?acted?within?the?scope?of?his?employment?while?committing?a?rape.
Despite?the?majority’s?effort?to?suggest?some?limitations?on?its?holding,?the?practical?result?is?clear:?no?matter?how?attenuated?the?relationship?[54?Cal.3d?228]?between?police?misconduct?and?an?officer’s?employment,?if?he?takes?advantage?of?the?authority?he?acquires?as?an?officer?in?order?to?commit?the?crime,?he?may?be?found?to?be?acting?within?the?scope?of?his?employment,?and?the?City?will?be?liable?for?any?damages?he?causes.?This?is?an?unprecedented?expansion?of?liability?which?is?unauthorized?by?the?controlling?governmental?immunity?statutes.
For?the?foregoing?reasons,?I?would?decide?this?case?in?plaintiff’s?favor?solely?on?the?ground?of?the?City’s?invited?error.?Because?the?majority,?however,?decides?the?broader?scope?of?employment?issue,?I?address?that?too.
Vicarious?Liability
I?respectfully?disagree?with?the?majority’s?reasoning?and?conclusion?that?the?City?may?be?held?vicariously?liable?for?the?injury?caused?by?Officer?Schroyer’s?criminal?conduct.?The?majority?imposes?on?the?taxpayers?of?the?City?the?financial?responsibility?for?a?rape?committed?by?a?police?officer?for?his?own?gratification.?No?act?can?be?more?unrelated?to?the?duties?of?a?police?officer?than?his?rape?of?a?member?of?the?public?he?is?sworn?and?paid?to?protect.?The?majority?admits,?as?does?the?plaintiff,?that?the?City?was?blameless.?The?proposed?rule?is?therefore?sweeping.?Taxpayers?may?be?strictly?liable?for?almost?any?abuse?of?position?by?a?police?officer?no?matter?how?unrelated?it?is?to?his?or?her?proper?duties.?I?share?the?urge?to?make?plaintiff?whole-assuming?that?money?can?ever?erase?her?pain.?No?compassionate?person?can?escape?outrage?at?the?harm?caused?by?this?errant?officer.?This?court’s?proper?function,?however,?is?not?to?search?for?deep?financial?pockets?regardless?of?the?law?or?practical?consequences.
III.?The?City’s?liability?is?governed?by?statute.
The?stated?cornerstone?of?the?majority?opinion?is?its?view?that,?”The?cost?resulting?from?misuse?of?that?[police]?power?should?be?borne?by?the?community?….”?(Maj.?opn.,?ante,?at?p.?217.)?The?question?of?the?City’s?liability?is?not?a?matter?of?judicial?preference.?The?Legislature?has?enacted?a?comprehensive?statutory?system?regulating?the?liability?of?public?entities.?(Gov.?Code,???810?et?seq.)?Under?this?scheme,?”[a]?public?entity?is?liable?for?injury?proximately?caused?by?[the?actionable?misconduct]?of?an?employee?…?within?the?scope?of?…?employment?….”?(Id.,???815.2,?subd.?(a),?italics?added.)?”Except?as?otherwise?provided?by?statute[,]?…?[?]?[a]?public?entity?is?not?liable?for?an?injury?….”?(Id.,???815,?subd.?(a).)?”Government[al]?tort?liability?in?California?is?governed?completely?by?statute.”?(Swaner?v.?City?of?Santa?Monica?(1984)?150?Cal.App.3d?789,?797?[198?Cal.Rptr.?208].)?”[T]he?practical?effect?of?[Government?Code?section?815]?is?to?eliminate?any?common?law?governmental?liability?for?damages?arising?out?[54?Cal.3d?229]?of?torts.”?(Sen.?legis.?committee?com.,?32?West’s?Ann.?Gov.?Code?(1980?ed.)???815,?p.?168?[Deering’s?Ann.?Gov.?Code?(1982?ed.)???815,?p.?134],?italics?added.)
The?Legislature’s?intent?to?circumscribe?liability?is?clear.?In?Muskopf?v.?Corning?Hospital?Dist.?(1961)?55?Cal.2d?211?[11?Cal.Rptr.?89,?359?P.2d?457],?this?court?attempted?to?abrogate?the?entrenched?doctrine?of?governmental?tort?immunity.?The?Legislature?promptly?responded?by?enacting?the?Moratorium?Act?of?1961?(former?Civ.?Code,???22.3),?which?suspended?the?effect?of?Muskopf?and?reinstated?the?immunity.?(Stats.?1961,?ch.?1404,?pp.?3209-3210.)?At?the?Legislature’s?request,?the?California?Law?Revision?Commission?submitted?a?comprehensive?report?in?1963,?which?gave?rise?to?the?statutory?system?that?now?governs?the?field?of?public?entity?tort?liability.?(Although?not?officially?titled,?the?legislation?is?commonly?referred?to?as?the?Tort?Claims?Act.)?This?history?makes?clear?that?the?Legislature?was?unwilling?to?accept?the?judicial?expansion?of?tort?liability?attempted?by?the?Muskopf?court.
Professor?Arno?Van?Alstyne?was?the?California?Law?Revision?Commission’s?chief?consultant?and?much?of?his?work?gave?rise?to?the?present?statutory?system.?He?has?explained?that,?”These?provisions?were?intended?to?ensure?that?applicable?immunity?provisions?of?the?California?Tort?Claims?Act?will?generally?prevail?over?its?liability?provisions.”?(Van?Alstyne,?Cal.?Government?Tort?Liability?Practice?(Cont.Ed.Bar?1980)???2.26,?p.?67.)?We?have?also?noted?the?restrictive?nature?of?the?act.?”[T]he?intent?of?the?act?is?not?to?expand?the?rights?of?plaintiffs?in?suits?against?governmental?entities,?but?to?confine?potential?governmental?liability?to?rigidly?delineated?circumstances:?immunity?is?waived?only?if?the?various?requirements?of?the?act?are?satisfied.”?(Williams?v.?Horvath?(1976)?16?Cal.3d?834,?838?[129?Cal.Rptr.?453,?548?P.2d?1125]?(opn.?by?Mosk,?J.).)
The?plain?language?of?the?act?supports?a?restrictive?view.?Government?Code?section?815?provides?an?immunity?except?as?”provided?by?statute.”?(Ibid.,?italics?added.)?The?Legislature?did?not?provide?for?exceptions?as?provided?by?”law,”?which?would?have?included?court?decisions.?(Gov.?Code,???811.)?This?limitation?also?reflects?the?Legislature’s?awareness?that?questions?of?public?entity?liability?are?policy?and?fiscal?questions?better?left?to?the?Legislature?than?to?the?courts.?The?Legislature’s?intent?to?restrain?judicial?expansion?of?liability?is?made?even?clearer?by?its?observation?that,?”The?use?of?the?word?’tort’?had?been?avoided,?however,?to?prevent?the?imposition?of?liability?by?the?courts?by?reclassifying?the?act?causing?the?injury.”?(Sen.?legis.?committee?com.,?32?West’s?Ann.?Gov.?Code,?supra,???815,?p.?168?[Deering’s?Ann.?Gov.?Code?supra???815,?p.?134],?italics?added.)?The?California?Law?Revision?Commission?further?explained?the?problem?of?undue?judicial?interference:?[54?Cal.3d?230]?”Experience?in?states?which?have?left?the?limits?of?liability?to?be?determined?by?the?courts?has?shown?that?liability?insurance?to?protect?the?financial?integrity?of?small?public?entities?is?at?times?prohibitively?expensive?or?impossible?to?obtain?when?there?is?no?defined?limit?to?the?potential?extent?of?liability.”?(Recommendations?Relating?to?Sovereign?Immunity,?No.?1,?Tort?Liability?of?Public?Entities?and?Public?Employees?(Jan.?1963)?4?Cal.?Law?Revision?Com.?Rep.?(1963)?pp.?808-809?(hereafter?Law?Revision?Commission?Recommendations).)
The?majority?asserts?that?the?statutory?phrase?”scope?of?employment”?imports?”general?standards”?of?respondeat?superior?law?into?the?Tort?Claims?Act?and?has?been?construed?as?broadly?as?the?similar?test?used?in?private?tort?litigation.?(Maj.?opn.,?ante,?at?pp.?209-210.)?Yet?the?majority?applies?to?financially?pressed?local?governments?a?startling?and?unwarranted?expansion?of?the?traditional?respondeat?superior?doctrine.
It?is?ancient?law?that?”[a]?master?is?not?liable?for?a?crime?or?wilful?injury,?such?as?an?assault,?committed?by?the?servant?without?his?command?or?encouragement,?though?it?may?be?in?the?course?of,?or?in?relation?to,?the?service.”?(2?Stephen,?New?Commentaries?on?the?Laws?of?England?(1843)?p.?278,?italics?added.)?Moreover,?under?general?tort?law,?an?employee’s?injurious?conduct?arises?in?the?”scope?of?employment”?for?purposes?of?vicarious?liability?where?the?conduct?was?”typical,”?”usual,”?”broadly?incidental,”?or?”inherent”?in?the?employer’s?enterprise,?but?not?where?the?conduct?was?so?”unusual?or?startling,”?or?constituted?such?a?”[substantial?deviation]?from?[the?employee’s]?duties?for?personal?purposes,”?that?”?’it?would?seem?unfair?to?include?the?[resulting]?loss?…?among?other?costs?of?the?employer’s?business.?…’?”?(Perez?v.?Van?Groningen?&?Sons,?Inc.?(1986)?41?Cal.3d?962,?968?[227?Cal.Rptr.?106,?719?P.2d?676];?see?Hinman?v.?Westinghouse?Elec.?Co.?(1970)?2?Cal.3d?956,?960?[88?Cal.Rptr.?188,?471?P.2d?988].)
Aside?from?his?original?detention?of?the?intoxicated?victim,?Officer?Schroyer’s?criminal?attack?had?no?relation?whatever?to?the?performance?of?his?law?enforcement?duties.?Rather,?he?deviated?completely?from?his?work?assignment,?in?a?manner?all?must?concede?was?both?”startling”?and?”unusual,”?to?commit?a?sexual?assault?for?personal?gratification.?Absent?supportive?legislation,?such?an?outrageous?sexual?attack?cannot?be?deemed?an?”inherent”?or?”broadly?incidental”?risk?of?law?enforcement?which?the?taxpayers?should?absorb?as?a?cost?of?government.?I?cannot?square?the?majority’s?radical?departure?from?traditional?respondeat?superior?law?with?the?purposes?of?the?Tort?Claims?Act.?[54?Cal.3d?231]?IV.?The?majority’s?extensive?reliance?on?public?policy?is?misplaced?and?unsupported.
The?majority?considers?at?some?length?various?”policy?factors.”?This?reliance?on?public?policy?is?both?unsupported?by?evidence?and?legally?misplaced.?The?governing?statutory?scheme?precludes?us?from?imposing?vicarious?liability?on?a?public?employer?as?a?matter?of?”policy.”?Liability?may?be?imposed?only?for?an?employee’s?actionable?misconduct?”in?the?scope?of?…?employment.”?The?only?issue?presented?is?when,?if?ever,?a?police?officer’s?intentional?criminality?can?fairly?be?deemed?”in?the?scope”?of?the?officer’s?employment.?Intentional?criminal?conduct?entirely?beyond?the?scope?of?an?officer’s?law?enforcement?duties?cannot?meet?that?test.
- Statutory?nature?of?question
As?noted?above,?we?are?restricted?to?deciding?this?case?in?light?of?the?comprehensive?statutory?scheme?that?governs?public?entity?liability.?In?appropriate?cases,?consideration?of?public?policy?may?assist?the?court?in?construing?a?statute.?However,?because?the?clear?legislative?intent?was?to?restrict?government’s?liability,?this?court?should?not?impose?liability?absent?a?clear?indication?the?Legislature?intended?such?result.?The?majority?does?not?undertake?such?an?analysis?and?refers?only?tangentially?to?the?statutes.?Its?opinion?offers?no?reasoned?basis?to?conclude?that?the?Legislature?intended?to?bring?all?criminal?misuse?of?an?officer’s?status,?power,?or?authority,?however?flagrantly?unrelated?to?duty,?within?the?”scope?of?[the?officer’s]?employment.”
Even?assuming?we?were?free?to?resolve?the?policy?question,?I?am?troubled?by?the?majority’s?incomplete?discussion?of?the?competing?public?policies.?Whether?plaintiff?should?recover?for?her?injuries?is?only?one?side?of?the?equation.?The?other?side?is?whether?the?taxpayers?of?the?City?should?be?forced?to?pay?for?those?injuries.?The?public?fisc?is?not?infinite.?To?the?contrary,?in?this?era?of?limited?public?resources,?every?expenditure?for?one?purpose?requires?a?withdrawal?of?funds?for?another?purpose.?Compensating?the?plaintiff?is?a?worthy?and?sympathetic?goal.?Whether?it?is?more?worthy?than?other?public?purposes?is?a?question?beyond?our?right?or?ability?to?answer.?Professor?Van?Alstyne?has?testified?that,?”[T]he?costs?and?the?funding?problems?are?one?of?the?most?difficult?problems?in?the?whole?field?of?tort?liability?…?in?the?area?of?government?torts?particularly?….”?(Hearings?on?Government?Liability?Before?the?Joint?Com.?on?Tort?Liability?(Oct.?31,?1977)?p.?33.)
The?inescapable?truth?is?that?in?the?modern?era,?payments?from?the?public?purse?involve?hard?choices?of?priorities.?For?example,?in?1986?the?voters?[54?Cal.3d?232]?enacted?Civil?Code?section?1431.1?to?restrict?liability?for?noneconomic?damages.?The?voters’?findings?and?declaration?of?purpose?stated,?”Local?governments?have?been?forced?to?curtail?some?essential?police,?fire,?and?other?protections?because?of?the?soaring?costs?of?lawsuits?and?insurance?premiums.”?(Civ.?Code,???1431.1,?subd.?(c).)?The?effect?of?tort?judgments?on?public?resources?is?significant.?A?court?should?not?ignore?fiscal?reality?when?expanding?the?frontier?of?tort?liability.?If?a?court?wishes?to?sit?as?a?”super-Legislature,”?the?court?should?wrestle?with?the?same?vexing?problems?that?arise?in?the?legislative?arena?and?should?be?subject?to?the?same?electoral?pressures?faced?by?legislators.
Of?course,?the?Legislature?(or?the?electorate?itself)?is?best?equipped?to?consider?empirical?evidence,?e.g.,?the?frequency?of?police?rape,?and?to?make?the?hard?choices?as?to?where?public?money?will?be?spent.?(Brown?v.?Kelly?Broadcasting?Co.?(1989)?48?Cal.3d?711,?740?[257?Cal.Rptr.?708,?771?P.2d?406]?[leaving?consideration?of?empirical?data?to?the?Legislature];?J.?C.?Penney?Casualty?Ins.?Co.?v.?M.?K.?(1991)?52?Cal.3d?1009,?1028?[278?Cal.Rptr.?64,?804?P.2d?689]?[noting?importance?of?Legislature’s?consideration?of?empirical?data].)?We?would?do?well?to?pay?heed?to?the?observation?of?an?English?jurist?that?public?policy?”is?a?very?unruly?horse,?and?when?once?you?get?astride?it?you?never?know?where?it?will?carry?you.”?(Richardson?v.?Mellish?(1824?Bing.)?103?Eng.?Rep.?294,?303.)?Courts?should?be?extremely?reluctant?to?decide?for?the?public?how?its?money?should?be?spent.?(Sands?v.?Morongo?Unified?School?Dist.?(1991)?53?Cal.3d?863,?941?[281?Cal.Rptr.?34,?809?P.2d?809]?(dis.?opn.?of?Baxter,?J.,?noting?importance?of?not?interfering?with?community-based?decisions).)
The?majority’s?legislative?decision?to?allocate?public?funds?is?especially?bothersome?in?light?of?the?absence?of?any?factual?support?for?many?of?the?majority’s?critical?assumptions.?The?majority?cites?no?evidence?for?its?sweeping?pronouncements?that?vicarious?employer?liability?for?police?sexual?misconduct?will?encourage?preventive?measures?that?do?not?hinder?the?vital?law?enforcement?function.?Indeed,?both?common?sense?and?prior?commentary?by?this?court?(see?discussion,?post)?suggest?the?contrary.
- Source?of?the?majority’s?policy?factors
The?majority?relies?almost?entirely?on?policy?factors?set?forth?in?the?lead?opinion?in?John?R.?v.?Oakland?Unified?School?Dist.?(1989)?48?Cal.3d?438?[256?Cal.Rptr.?766,?769?P.2d?948]?(John?R.).)?This?reliance?is?flawed,?even?puzzling,?in?several?respects.
- The?John?R.?court,?supra,?48?Cal.3d?438,?declined?to?impose?vicarious?liability?for?a?sexual?assault?by?a?schoolteacher?on?a?pupil.?A?[54?Cal.3d?233]?decision?rejecting?vicarious?liability?provides?questionable?support?for?an?expansion?of?such?liability.?Even?one?of?the?two?dissenters?on?the?liability?issue?observed?that,?”[V]icarious?liability?for?sexual?assaults?should?be?recognized?as?the?exception,?not?the?rule.”?(Id.,?at?p.?465?(conc.?and?dis.?opn.?by?Kaufman,?J.).)?Another?critic?of?the?John?R.?decision?properly?called?it?”an?extraordinarily?broad?rule”?against?vicarious?liability.?(Kimberly?M.?v.?Los?Angeles?Unified?School?Dist.?(1989)?215?Cal.App.3d?545,?550?[263?Cal.Rptr.?612]?(conc.?opn.?of?Johnson,?J.).)?Moreover,?when?John?R.?was?decided,?we?had?already?granted?review?in?this?case.?To?make?clear?that?we?were?not?prejudging?this?case,?the?lead?opinion?in?John?R.?stressed?that?we?were?not?deciding?whether?a?prior?Court?of?Appeal?decision?imposing?vicarious?liability?for?a?sexual?assault?by?a?police?officer?”…?was?properly?decided?or?whether?the?job-created?authority?theory?has?any?validity?in?evaluating?vicarious?liability?for?the?torts?of?police?officers.”?(48?Cal.3d?at?p.?452?(lead?opn.?by?Arguelles,?J.),?italics?added.)?The?lead?opinion?could?not?have?made?more?clear?that?we?were?not?deciding?the?issue?now?before?us.?(Liu?v.?Republic?of?China?(9th?Cir.?1989)?892?F.2d?1419,?1431?[noting?that?we?”specifically?declined”?in?John?R.,?supra,?48?Cal.3d?438,?to?decide?the?scope?of?vicarious?liability?for?police?misconduct].)
- In?light?of?the?express?disclaimer?in?John?R.,?supra,?48?Cal.3d?438,?452,?that?we?were?not?deciding?the?issue?of?vicarious?liability?for?police?rape,?any?observations?in?the?lead?opinion?were?the?barest?of?dictum,?if?even?that.?We?have?made?clear?that,?”?'[T]he?language?of?an?opinion?must?be?construed?with?reference?to?the?facts?presented?by?the?case,?and?the?positive?authority?of?a?decision?is?coextensive?only?with?such?facts.’?”?(Brown?v.?Kelly?Broadcasting?Co.,?supra,?48?Cal.3d?711,?734-735,?quoting?River?Farms?Co.?v.?Superior?Court?(1933)?131?Cal.App.?365,?369?[21?P.2d?643].)?This?is?especially?so?when?a?court?takes?pains?to?stress?the?narrowness?of?its?decision.?The?John?R.?lead?opinion,?supra,?48?Cal.3d?438,?raised?a?red?flag?to?warn?against?subsequent?reliance?on?the?decision.?The?present?majority?takes?that?flag?and?lofts?it?as?a?standard?for?a?view?the?John?R.?court?never?adopted.
- Most?important,?the?policy?discussion?in?John?R.,?supra,?48?Cal.3d?438,?was?in?an?opinion?signed?by?only?two?justices?of?this?court.?(There?were?four?separate?opinions.)?Even?the?other?three?justices?who?agreed?there?should?be?no?vicarious?liability?declined?to?sign?the?portion?of?the?lead?opinion?dealing?with?that?issue.?Instead,?they?chose?to?make?clear?that?they?concurred?only?”in?the?majority’s?holding”?of?no?vicarious?liability.?(Id.,?at?p.?455?(conc.?and?dis.?opn.?of?Eagleson,?J.),?italics?added.)?Except?to?its?precise?holding?of?no?liability,?the?lead?opinion?stated?a?minority?view?and?provides?no?authority?for?any?proposition?in?a?subsequent?case.?(County?of?San?Mateo?v.?Dell?J.?(1988)?46?Cal.3d?1236,?1241,?fn.?5?[252?Cal.Rptr.?478,?762?P.2d?1202];?Farrell?v.?Board?of?Trustees?(1890)?85?Cal.?408,?416?[54?Cal.3d?234]?[24?P.?868].)?This?is?hornbook?law.?”No?opinion?has?any?value?as?a?precedent?on?points?as?to?which?there?is?no?agreement?of?a?majority?of?the?court.”?(9?Witkin,?Cal.?Procedure,?Appeal,?supra,???808,?at?p.?788.)
- Even?if?we?were?to?look?to?John?R.,?supra,?48?Cal.3d?438,?for?the?type?of?general?guidance?we?might?seek?in?a?treatise?or?plurality?opinion,?it?would?not?support?the?majority’s?expansion?of?vicarious?liability.?The?policy?factors?noted?in?the?lead?opinion?weigh?against?vicarious?liability?in?this?case.?The?majority,?however,?applies?them?erroneously?and?inconsistently?to?impose?liability.
- Allocation?of?the?risk
The?modern?justification?for?vicarious?liability?is?”?’?”a?deliberate?allocation?of?a?risk.”?’?”?(John?R.,?supra,?48?Cal.3d?438,?450,?quoting?Hinman?v.?Westinghouse?Elec.?Co.,?supra,?2?Cal.3d?956,?959-960.)?The?John?R.?lead?opinion?acknowledged?that?society?benefits?from?the?authority?placed?in?teachers?and?noted?that,?”[I]t?can?be?argued?that?the?consequences?of?an?abuse?of?that?authority?should?be?shared?on?an?equally?broad?basis.”?(48?Cal.3d?at?p.?452.)?The?lead?opinion,?however,?concluded?this?factor?weighed?against?vicarious?liability?because?the?connection?between?the?authority?conferred?on?teachers?and?the?abuse?of?that?authority?by?engaging?in?sexual?misconduct?is?too?attenuated?to?allocate?the?risk?to?the?employer.?That?conclusion?equally?weighs?against?liability?in?this?case.
Rather?than?relying?on?the?result?in?John?R.,?supra,?48?Cal.3d?438,?or?even?the?lead?opinion’s?application?of?this?factor,?the?present?majority?relies?heavily?on?a?statement?in?the?lead?opinion?that?the?authority?of?a?police?officer?”plainly?surpasses?that?of?a?teacher?over?a?student.”?(Id.,?at?p.?452.)?This?statement?is?unpersuasive:?(i)?It?was?a?passing?observation?in?dictum.?(ii)?It?was?in?an?opinion?of?only?two?justices.?(iii)?The?court?was?fully?aware?this?case?was?pending?when?we?decided?John?R.?As?explained?above,?the?lead?opinion?expressly?stated?we?were?not?deciding?”whether?the?job-created?authority?theory?has?any?validity?in?evaluating?vicarious?liability?for?the?torts?of?police?officers.”?(Ibid.)?In?light?of?these?multiple?limitations?and?disclaimers,?it?would?be?hard?to?find?a?more?slender?reed?on?which?to?conclude?that?John?R.?supports?vicarious?liability?in?this?case.
Moreover,?I?am?not?persuaded?by?the?speculation?in?the?John?R.,?supra,?48?Cal.3d?438,?lead?opinion?and?the?present?majority?opinion?that?a?police?officer’s?authority?”plainly?surpasses?that?of?a?teacher?over?a?student.”?(Id.,?at?p.?452.)?The?majority’s?discussion,?like?the?lead?opinion?in?John?R.,?fails?to?provide?support?for?this?assertion,?and?common?sense?suggests?to?the?contrary.?A?schoolteacher?alone?at?his?home?with?an?impressionable?child?has?as?[54?Cal.3d?235]?much?power?and?opportunity?to?commit?a?sexual?assault?against?the?child,?especially?one?of?tender?years,?as?a?police?officer?has?to?commit?an?assault?against?a?citizen.?Justice?Kaufman?pointed?out?in?John?R.,?supra,?that?the?circumstances?of?the?case?”virtually?guaranteed?that?the?teacher?could?act?with?impunity?….”?(Id.,?at?p.?465?(conc.?and?dis.?opn.?of?Kaufman,?J.),?original?italics.)?A?teacher?may?have?even?greater?apparent?”authority”?than?a?police?officer.?None?of?the?indicia?of?police?power?cited?by?the?majority-the?uniform,?badge,?and?gun-creates?any?appearance?that?the?officer?has?the?authority?to?rape.?Plaintiff?did?not?believe?Officer?Schroyer?was?authorized?to?have?sexual?intercourse?with?her.?To?the?contrary,?she?struggled?to?avoid?being?raped.?A?young?child,?however,?may?be?induced?to?submit?to?a?teacher’s?sexual?depravity?by?being?led?to?believe?that?the?teacher?has?the?authority?to?commit?sex?acts.
The?allocation?of?risk,?or?loss?spreading?as?it?is?sometimes?called,?should?be?reasonable?and?informed?as?well?as?deliberate.?The?decision?whether?to?impose?liability?requires?a?delicate?balancing?of?competing?interests,?particularly?when?the?defendant?at?law?is?a?public?entity?and?the?defendants?in?fact?are?the?taxpayers.?The?determination?is?best?left?to?the?Legislature.?Neither?of?the?decisions?on?which?the?John?R.?lead?opinion?relied?for?the?notion?of?risk?allocation?involved?governmental?entities.?(Hinman?v.?Westinghouse?Elec.?Co.,?supra,?2?Cal.3d?956;?Perez?v.?Van?Groningen?&?Sons,?Inc.,?supra,?41?Cal.3d?962.)
In?its?comprehensive?study?that?gave?rise?to?the?Tort?Claims?Act,?the?California?Law?Revision?Commission?explained,?”The?problems?involved?in?drawing?standards?for?governmental?liability?and?governmental?immunity?are?of?immense?difficulty.?Government?cannot?merely?be?made?liable?as?private?persons?are,?for?public?entities?are?fundamentally?different?from?private?persons.?…?Private?persons?do?not?prosecute?and?incarcerate?violators?of?the?law?….?Unlike?many?private?persons,?a?public?entity?often?cannot?reduce?its?risk?of?potential?liability?by?refusing?to?engage?in?a?particular?activity,?for?government?must?continue?to?govern?and?is?required?to?furnish?services?that?cannot?be?adequately?provided?by?any?other?agency.”?(Law?Revision?Com.?Recommendations,?supra,?at?p.?810.)?The?California?Law?Revision?Commission?and?the?Legislature?required?enormous?amounts?of?empirical?data?and?many?months?of?collective?consideration?to?reach?difficult?decisions.?The?majority?acknowledges?no?difficulty?whatsoever?and?gives?no?consideration?to?the?potential?effects?of?imposing?strict?liability?on?the?City.
The?notion?of?risk?allocation?merits?special?mention?in?another?regard.?We?have?long?emphasized?that?one?factor?to?be?considered?in?determining?whether?to?impose?a?particular?type?of?tort?liability?is?”the?availability,?cost,?[54?Cal.3d?236]?and?prevalence?of?[liability]?insurance?for?the?risk?involved.”?(Rowland?v.?Christian?(1968)?69?Cal.2d?108,?113?[70?Cal.Rptr.?97,?443?P.2d?561,?32?A.L.R.3d?496].)?The?lead?opinion?in?John?R.,?supra,?48?Cal.3d?438,?reiterated?this?concern:?”The?imposition?of?vicarious?liability?on?school?districts?for?the?sexual?torts?of?their?employees?would?tend?to?make?insurance,?already?a?scarce?resource,?even?harder?to?obtain?and?could?lead?to?the?diversion?of?needed?funds?from?the?classroom?to?cover?claims.”?(Id.,?at?p.?451.)?The?high?cost?and?widespread?unavailability?of?municipal?liability?insurance?have?been?widely?reported?and?studied.?(See,?e.g.,?Hearings?on?Municipal?Liability?Insurance?(Dec.?1975)?Before?the?Joint?Assem.?Coms.?on?Finance,?Insurance,?and?Commerce?and?Local?Government;?Hearings?on?Liability?Insurance:?Threat?to?the?California?Dream?(Aug.?1986)?Before?the?Sen.?Com.?on?Insurance,?Claims,?and?Corporations;?California?Citizens’?Commission?on?Tort?Reform,?Staff?Background?Paper:?Government?Liability?(1977)?pp.?24-25.)?The?unavailability?of?public?liability?insurance?reached?such?crisis?proportions?that?in?1986?it?became?one?of?the?key?arguments?in?favor?of?Proposition?51,?which?the?voters?enacted?to?restrict?the?liability?of?defendants?(including?public?entities)?for?noneconomic?injuries.?(See?Ballot?Pamp.,?argument?in?favor?of?Prop.?51?as?presented?to?the?voters,?Primary?Elec.?(June?3,?1986)?p.?34.)?The?majority,?however,?gives?no?consideration?to?this?traditionally?recognized?factor.
Our?proper?function?is?not?to?usurp?the?Legislature’s?budgetary?function?of?allocating?risk?for?public?entity?torts.?Even?if?the?question?were?ours?to?answer,?we?do?not?have?before?us?sufficient?empirical?data?on?which?to?make?the?difficult?choice?between?competing?fiscal?priorities.
- Imposing?liability?on?the?employer?to?prevent?recurrence?of?the?tortious?conduct
The?John?R.?lead?opinion?remarked?that?vicarious?liability?can?be?”a?spur?toward?accident?prevention.”?(48?Cal.3d?at?p.?451.)?On?the?other?hand,?John?R.?recognized?that?a?public?entity?must?not?be?presented?with?such?an?onerous,?impossible,?or?impractical?prevention?burden?that?its?proper?functions?are?threatened.?(Ibid.)?This?latter?principle?was?a?cornerstone?of?the?Tort?Claims?Act.?The?California?Law?Revision?Commission?emphasized?that,?”The?basic?problem?is?to?determine?how?far?it?is?desirable?to?permit?the?loss?distributing?function?of?tort?law?to?apply?to?public?entities?without?unduly?frustrating?or?interfering?with?the?desirable?purposes?for?which?such?entities?exist.”?(Law?Revision?Com.?Recommendations,?supra,?at?p.?810,?italics?added.)
Rape,?of?course,?is?no?accident.?It?results?from?an?individual’s?conscious?decision?to?commit?the?outrageous?act?despite?all?moral?and?legal?sanctions.?[54?Cal.3d?237]?Hence,?it?cannot?be?prevented?in?the?way?a?city?might?train?its?officers?in?safe?driving.?Rape?is?a?serious?crime?punishable?by?imprisonment?(Pen.?Code,????261,?264),?and?a?compensable?civil?wrong?as?well.?We?assume?such?considerations?informed?the?John?R.?lead?opinion’s?observation?that?prevention?and?deterrence?”[play]?little?role?in?the?allocation?of?responsibility?for?the?sexual?misconduct?of?employees?generally?….”?(48?Cal.3d?at?p.?451.)
Here?there?is?no?suggestion?that?the?City?negligently?failed?to?screen?Officer?Schroyer’s?background?and?character,?or?that?it?failed?to?exercise?due?care?in?training?and?supervising?him.?The?majority?fails?to?explain?what?additional?measures?the?City?could?or?should?practically?have?taken?to?prevent?his?intentional?sexual?misconduct.?Nor?have?we?any?evidence?about?the?costs?or?benefits?of?any?such?measures.?Indeed,?as?the?John?R.?lead?opinion?observed,?excessive?restrictions?on?contacts?between?public?employees?and?citizens?are?likely?to?undermine?the?employees’?public?function.?(48?Cal.3d?at?p.?451.)?Common?sense?suggests?that?what?was?true?for?education?in?John?R.?has?equal?or?greater?validity?in?the?context?of?law?enforcement.
The?premise?that?the?City?should?adopt?further?regulations?for?police?training?and?conduct?also?runs?afoul?of?Government?Code?section?818.2.?Section?818.2?provides?that?”[a]?public?entity?is?not?liable?for?an?injury?caused?by?adopting?or?failing?to?adopt?an?enactment?or?by?failing?to?enforce?any?law.”?The?term?”enactment”?includes?ordinances?and?regulations.?(Gov.?Code,???810.6.)
The?majority’s?inability?to?suggest?how?vicarious?liability?might?deter?sexual?misconduct?by?public?employees?demonstrates?that?we?are?ill?equipped?to?dictate?such?matters.?As?the?California?Law?Revision?Commission?explained,?”in?many?cases?decisions?made?by?the?legislative?and?executive?branches?should?not?be?subject?to?review?in?tort?suits?for?damages,?for?this?would?take?the?ultimate?decision-making?authority?from?those?who?are?responsible?politically?for?making?the?decisions.”?(Law?Revision?Com.?Recommendations,?supra,?at?p.?810.)?”The?remedy?for?officials?who?make?bad?law,?who?do?not?adequately?enforce?existing?law,?or?who?do?not?provide?the?people?with?services?they?desire?is?to?replace?them?with?other?officials.”?(Id.,?at?p.?817.)
Of?course,?the?paradoxical?result?of?the?majority’s?holding?is?that?no?matter?what?the?City?does,?it?may?be?held?responsible?for?a?police?officer’s?criminal?conduct?including?offenses?such?as?this?rape.?The?City’s?police?department?already?has?a?policy?that?imposes?several?reporting?requirements?on?officers?who?transport?members?of?the?opposite?sex.?(See?maj.?opn.,?ante,?at?p.?218,?fn.?10.)?The?City’s?assistant?chief?of?police?in?charge?of?personnel?and?training?testified?that?department?policy?requires?a?male?officer?transporting?[54?Cal.3d?238]?a?female?arrestee?to?record?the?time?and?mileage?of?his?police?vehicle?so?that?the?arrestee’s?whereabouts?could?be?monitored?and?verified.?Department?policy?also?prohibited?Officer?Schroyer?from?transporting?plaintiff?to?her?residence.?Obviously,?these?policies?did?not?prevent?the?rape?in?this?case.
Under?the?majority’s?reasoning,?one?purpose?of?vicarious?liability?in?this?case?would?be?to?encourage?the?City?to?adopt?further,?undefined?measures.?By?adopting?the?rules?then?in?effect,?the?City,?however,?may?have?done?all?that?it?could?reasonably?do?without?imposing?an?undue?burden?on?the?police’s?resources?and?mission-the?same?concern?expressed?in?John?R.?Indeed,?if?the?City?did?not?act?reasonably,?it?could?have?been?found?negligent.?Plaintiff,?however,?dismissed?her?cause?of?action?for?negligence,?thereby?indicating?that?the?City?had?done?all?it?could?reasonably?be?expected?to?do.?Plaintiff?fails?to?propose?any?regulation?that?would?be?effective?without?being?unreasonably?restrictive?on?effective?law?enforcement.
The?majority’s?treatment?of?the?regulations?adopted?by?the?City?is?self-?contradictory.?At?one?point,?the?majority?approvingly?notes?a?rule?adopted?by?the?San?Francisco?Police?Department?relating?to?the?transport?of?females?by?male?officers.?The?majority?asserts?this?rule?”illustrates?the?type?of?measure?that?a?law?enforcement?agency?can?take?to?reduce?the?incidence?of?sexual?assaults?by?police?officers?on?duty.”?(Maj.?opn.,?ante,?at?p.?215,?fn.?7.)?Only?a?few?paragraphs?later,?the?majority?notes?that?the?City?has?a?similar?regulation.?Thus,?the?effect?of?the?majority’s?holding?is?that?the?City?is?liable?despite?its?adoption?of?measures?vicarious?liability?is?designed?to?encourage.fn.?1
The?proper?question?is?whether?vicarious?liability?would?deter?future?misconduct?without?undue?adverse?consequences?for?the?police?function.?If?we?impose?liability,?the?City?has?two?choices:?(1)?It?can?conclude?it?has?already?done?all?that?it?can?reasonably?do?and?accept?the?fact?that?errant?officers?might?on?occasion?rape?citizens,?thereby?subjecting?the?City?to?vicarious?liability.?If?this?is?the?result,?vicarious?liability?has?no?deterrent?effect.?(2)?Alternatively,?the?City?can?take?measures?beyond?those?already?adopted.?It?requires?little?common?sense?to?imagine?that?such?measures?might?lead?to?the?same?result?disapproved?in?John?R.,?supra,?48?Cal.3d?438-undue?interference?with?the?City’s?ability?to?perform?its?mission?of?providing?police?protection.?In?rejecting?vicarious?liability?for?a?teacher’s?sexual?molestation?of?a?child,?the?John?R.?lead?opinion?explained?that,?”Although?it?is?unquestionably?important?to?encourage?both?the?careful?selection?of?these?employees?[54?Cal.3d?239]?and?the?close?monitoring?of?their?conduct,?such?concerns?are,?we?think,?better?addressed?by?holding?school?districts?to?the?exercise?of?due?care?in?such?matters?and?subjecting?them?to?liability?only?for?their?own?direct?negligence?in?that?regard.?Applying?the?doctrine?of?respondeat?superior?to?impose,?in?effect,?strict?liability?in?this?context?would?be?far?too?likely?…?to?induce?districts?to?impose?such?rigorous?controls?on?activities?of?this?nature?that?the?educational?process?would?be?negatively?affected.”?(Id.,?at?p.?451.)?The?same?reasoning?applies?with?equal?force?in?this?case.
Whether?vicarious?liability?will?have?a?deterrent?effect?without?undue?impediment?to?a?public?function?depends?on?what?measures?a?public?entity?has?already?taken,?what?additional?measures?it?can?take,?and?what?the?effects?of?those?measures?will?likely?be.?The?majority’s?holding?will?allow?liability?in?future?cases?regardless?of?whether?it?will?help?attain?the?goal?of?deterrence?or?whether?it?will?unduly?restrict?an?essential?public?function.?At?a?minimum,?the?question?whether?vicarious?liability?is?appropriate?should?depend?on?the?particular?facts?of?each?case.?In?John?R.,?even?Justice?Kaufman,?who?vigorously?dissented?in?favor?of?vicarious?liability,?explained?that,?”Respondeat?superior?is?a?fact-specific?determination;?a?holding?adverse?to?the?district?would?necessarily?be?limited?to?the?uniquely?compelling?facts?of?this?case.”?(48?Cal.3d?at?p.?465?(conc.?and?dis.?opn.?of?Kaufman,?J.),?italics?added.)?By?contrast,?the?majority?result?here?is?absolute?and?not?tethered?to?any?factual?basis.
- Assurance?of?compensation?to?accident?victims
The?John?R.?lead?opinion,?supra,?48?Cal.3d?438,?concluded?that?the?general?goal?of?compensating?accident?victims?weighed?against?imposing?vicarious?liability?for?a?sexual?assault.?”The?[sexual]?acts?here?differ?from?the?normal?range?of?risks?for?which?costs?can?be?spread?and?insurance?sought.?[Citation.]?The?imposition?of?vicarious?liability?on?school?districts?for?the?sexual?torts?of?their?employees?would?tend?to?make?insurance,?already?a?scarce?resource,?even?harder?to?obtain,?and?could?lead?to?the?diversion?of?needed?funds?from?the?classroom?to?cover?claims.”?(Id.,?at?p.?451.)?The?same?reasoning?applies?equally?to?the?present?case.?Imposing?vicarious?liability?on?cities?for?employee-committed?rapes?indisputably?will?increase?the?cost?of?insurance?and?will?also?decrease?its?availability.fn.?2?[54?Cal.3d?240]
Perhaps?to?avoid?this?difficulty,?the?majority?makes?an?elliptical?argument?as?to?legislative?intent,?stating?that,?by?not?enacting?governmental?immunity?for?violent?police?misconduct,?the?Legislature?has?demonstrated?that?vicarious?liability?is?an?appropriate?method?for?ensuring?victim?compensation.?However,?the?Legislature’s?failure?to?expressly?preclude?liability?is?not?a?valid?indicator?that?the?legislative?purpose?was?to?allow?such?liability.
The?Legislature?has?provided?that?vicarious?liability?may?be?imposed?only?for?a?public?employee’s?actionable?misconduct?”in?the?scope?…?of?employment.”?Where,?as?here,?the?employee’s?intentional?criminal?conduct?was?a?spontaneous?personal?deviation?from?duty?and?bore?no?relationship?to?his?work?performance,?the?Legislature’s?standard?for?vicarious?liability?has?not?been?met.
I?am?not?persuaded?that?ensuring?compensation?for?victims?is?a?dispositive?concern?in?any?event.?It?is?a?truism?to?state?that?ensuring?compensation?weighs?in?favor?of?vicarious?liability.?The?deeper?the?defendant’s?pocket,?the?easier?the?plaintiff?is?compensated.?If?ensuring?compensation?were?the?only?goal,?vicarious?liability?should?apply?against?all?employers?in?all?cases.?However,?as?the?result?in?John?R.,?supra,?48?Cal.3d?438,?demonstrates,?the?sympathetic?desire?to?compensate?the?injured?is?not?a?sufficient?basis?on?which?to?impose?vicarious?liability.
Our?decisions?in?other?areas?reinforce?this?principle.?For?example,?prescription?drugs?occasionally?have?grievous,?even?fatal,?side?effects?upon?innocent?victims.?We?recently?held,?however,?that?a?manufacturer?of?a?defectively?designed?drug?cannot?be?held?strictly?liable.?(Brown?v.?Superior?Court?(1988)?44?Cal.3d?1049,?1061?[245?Cal.Rptr.?412,?751?P.2d?470].)?Writing?for?a?unanimous?court?in?Brown,?Justice?Mosk?explained?that?despite?occasional?”unfortunate?consequences”?to?sympathetic?victims,?the?public?interest?in?the?development?and?availability?of?prescription?drugs?weighed?against?liability?without?fault.?(Id.,?at?pp.?1061-1065.)?Similarly,?in?Belair?v.?Riverside?County?Flood?Control?Dist.?(1988)?47?Cal.3d?550,?564-565?[253?Cal.Rptr.?693,?764?P.2d?1070],?we?held?that?strict?liability?was?not?appropriate?in?an?inverse?condemnation?action?for?property?damaged?by?public?flood?control?projects.?We?found,?in?effect,?that?the?desire?to?compensate?individual?injuries?was?outweighed?by?important?public?need?for?such?projects.
The?public?has?equally?compelling?interests?in?adequate?law?enforcement?and?preservation?of?public?funds.?A?ruling?that?the?public?must?bear?the?cost?[54?Cal.3d?241]?of?all?police?misconduct?merely?because?the?public?benefits?from?law?enforcement?is?inconsistent?with?the?spirit?of?Brown?and?Belair.
- The?majority?opinion?will?have?adverse?practical?effects.
The?theoretical?and?practical?ramifications?of?the?majority’s?holding?are?sweeping.?At?a?minimum,?the?majority?opinion?will?permit?imposition?of?vicarious?liability?whenever?an?on-duty?police?officer?commits?rape?or?some?other?sexual?assault?against?a?citizen?the?officer?has?detained?by?invoking?his?official?authority.?(Maj.?opn.,?ante,?at?p.?221.)?It?is?difficult?to?see?how?a?jury?could?find,?consistent?with?the?majority?opinion,?that?a?uniformed?officer?who?detains?and?sexually?assaults?a?motorist?was?not?acting?in?the?course?and?scope?of?his?employment.
The?majority?purports?to?limit?its?holding?to?cases?in?which?an?officer?”exercises”?or?”misuses”?his?authority.?Indeed,?the?opinion?stresses?that?vicarious?liability?is?appropriate?here?because?Office?Schroyer?committed?his?criminal?act?while?”on?duty”?and?”in?uniform.”?But?the?majority’s?underlying?logic?extends?far?beyond?these?limited?circumstances.?Once?the?majority’s?fundamental?premise?is?accepted,?its?efforts?to?limit?its?ruling?are?largely?illusory.
The?majority’s?conclusions?rest?on?the?principle?that?a?police?officer’s?special?power?and?authority?allow?him?to?impose?his?will?on?citizens.?But?this?power?and?authority?are?limited?neither?to?uniformed?officers,?nor?to?on-duty?hours.?Officers?have?law?enforcement?responsibility?even?when?off?duty,?and?their?jurisdiction?in?certain?situations?is?statewide.?(See,?e.g.,?Pen.?Code,???830.1,?subd.?(a)(3).)?Moreover,?an?officer’s?special?power?to?intimidate,?if?any,?does?not?depend?on?whether?he?is?actually?on?duty?or?in?full?uniform.?If?the?officer?acts?in?uniform,?or?displays?his?badge,?or?brandishes?a?regulation?firearm,?or?even?mentions?his?or?her?status,?the?officer?implicitly?uses?state-conferred?power?and?ability?to?subjugate?the?victim.?Under?the?majority’s?reasoning,?a?jury?would?be?hard?pressed?to?find?that?misconduct?committed?under?such?circumstances?was?outside?”the?scope?of?…?employment.”?(See,?e.g.,?Silver,?Police?Civil?Liability?(1991)???6.07,?p.?6-12?[“[T]he?issue?of?’off’?vs.?’on’?duty?is?usually?not?critical?where,?for?instance,?the?officer?identifies?himself?or?uses?a?weapon.”].)
Rather?than?consider?or?even?acknowledge?this?consequence?of?its?holding,?the?majority?contends?that?cases?in?which?courts?have?refused?to?impose?vicarious?liability?for?sexual?misconduct?are?”distinguishable”?because?the?officers?were?off?duty.?However,?examination?of?these?decisions?discloses?no?such?dispositive?distinction.?In?Gambling?v.?Cornish?(N.D.Ill.?1977)?426?F.Supp.?1153,?the?court?did?not?decide?whether?the?raping?officers?were?on?or?[54?Cal.3d?242]?off?duty.?Rather,?the?court?stated?that,?even?assuming?they?were?on?duty,?there?was?no?vicarious?liability.?(Id.,?at?p.?1155.)?Similarly,?in?Bates?v.?Doria?(1986)?150?Ill.App.3d?1025?[502?N.E.2d?454],?the?court?rejected?liability,?not?because?the?officer?was?off?duty,?but?because?the?rape?was?outrageous?and?therefore?beyond?the?scope?of?his?employment.
The?logical?consequence?of?the?majority’s?holding?is?demonstrated?by?one?of?the?out-of-state?cases?on?which?it?relies.?In?Applewhite?v.?City?of?Baton?Rouge?(La.Ct.App.?1979)?380?So.2d?119,?the?court?upheld?vicarious?liability?for?a?rape?committed?by?an?on-duty?police?officer.?The?significance?for?our?case?is?that,?in?support?of?its?conclusion,?the?court?relied?on?prior?Louisiana?decisions?that?imposed?vicarious?liability?for?torts?committed?by?off-duty?officers.?(Id.,?at?pp.?121-?122,?citing?Cheatham?v.?Lee?(La.Ct.App.?1973)?277?So.2d?513;?Borque?v.?Lohr?(La.Ct.App.?1971)?248?So.2d?901.)?The?majority’s?reliance?on?Applewhite,?supra,?is?curious?because?the?case?refutes?the?majority’s?attempted?distinction?between?on-duty?and?off-duty?misconduct.
The?majority’s?logic?will?also?extend?beyond?police?officers.?Part?2,?title?2,?chapter?4.5?of?the?Penal?Code?grants?peace?officer?status?to?a?wide?variety?of?law?enforcement?officers.?They?include?sheriffs,?marshals,?constables,?and?inspectors?for?district?attorneys.?Under?appropriate?circumstances,?peace?officer?status?is?conferred?on?dental?examiners,?voluntary?fire?wardens,?horse?racing?board?investigators,?and?many?other?persons.?(Pen.?Code,???830.3.)?Like?police,?some?of?these?officers?are?authorized?to?carry?firearms.?(Ibid.)?If?one?of?these?types?of?officers?uses?his?weapon?or?asserts?his?authority?in?order?to?facilitate?a?rape,?it?is?difficult?to?see?how?vicarious?liability?could?be?denied?under?the?majority?opinion.
The?majority?opinion?is?also?unlimited?in?terms?of?the?types?of?misconduct?that?will?give?rise?to?liability.?Rape,?robbery,?and?murder?serve?no?public?or?police?function.?Yet?the?majority’s?holding?seems?to?permit?imposition?of?vicarious?liability?for?all?these?crimes?if?the?perpetrator?made?any?use?of?official?trappings?or?weapons?or?if?the?victim?had?knowledge?of?the?attacker’s?connection?to?law?enforcement?and?submitted?accordingly.?The?implications?of?that?conclusion?are?daunting.
In?sum,?the?principles?espoused?by?the?majority?have?the?potential?to?convert?blameless?public?agencies?into?liability?insurers?for?much,?if?not?all,?of?the?intentional?misconduct?committed?by?peace?officers?in?their?employ.?Unlike?commercial?insurers,?the?innocent?agencies?can?neither?define?the?limits?of?their?coverage?nor?collect?premiums?to?finance?it.?Moreover,?as?we?have?seen,?they?may?be?both?legally?and?practically?barred?from?transferring?their?exposure?to?a?commercial?insurer.?The?majority?fails?to?persuade?me?that?law?or?public?policy?warrants?such?a?result.?[54?Cal.3d?243]
- Prior?court?decisions?weigh?against?vicarious?liability.
As?the?court?of?last?resort?on?this?question?of?state?statutory?construction,?we?are?not?bound?by?the?decisions?of?our?sister?states’?courts.?They?do,?however,?provide?guidance?in?determining?whether?our?decision?will?be?consistent?with?mainstream?thinking?on?this?issue.?(Delaney?v.?Superior?Court?(1990)?50?Cal.3d?785,?799,?fn.?9?[268?Cal.Rptr.?753,?789?P.2d?934].)?Those?decisions?weigh?against?imposing?liability.?(The?thrust?of?the?majority?on?this?point?is?defensive,?i.e,?trying?to?distinguish?cases?that?decline?liability.)
In?Bates?v.?United?States?(8th?Cir.?1983)?701?F.2d?737,?the?court?affirmed?a?summary?judgment?in?favor?of?the?federal?government?in?an?action?arising?from?rapes?and?murders?committed?by?a?military?policeman.?The?majority?attempts?to?downplay?the?decision’s?significance?by?emphasizing?that?the?federal?court?was?applying?state?law.?The?attempted?distinction?is?misplaced.?The?majority?does?not?dispute?that?the?decision?was?a?correct?application?of?Missouri?law.?The?decision?is?therefore?entitled?to?the?same?consideration?that?the?majority?gives?to?the?Louisiana?and?Wisconsin?state?court?decisions?on?which?the?majority?relies.
Bates?v.?United?States,?supra,?701?F.2d?737,?does?not?stand?alone.?In?City?of?Green?Cove?Springs?v.?Donaldson?(5th?Cir.?1965)?348?F.2d?197,?the?court?held?as?a?matter?of?law?that?an?on-duty?police?officer?was?not?within?the?scope?of?his?employment?when?he?arrested?and?raped?a?female?motorist.?(Id.,?at?p.?202.)?In?Gambling?v.?Cornish,?supra,?426?F.Supp.?1153,?the?court?held?that?two?policemen?who?raped?and?committed?other?sexual?acts?on?a?citizen?were?not?within?the?scope?of?their?employment,?regardless?of?whether?they?were?on?or?off?duty.?(Id.,?at?p.?1155.)?The?court?explained?that,?”[W]hile?the?doctrine?of?respondeat?superior?should?be?broadly?applied?when?a?police?officer?is?involved,?the?line?must?be?drawn?somewhere.”?(Ibid.)?In?Bates?v.?Doria,?supra,?502?N.E.2d?454,?the?court?affirmed?a?summary?judgment?in?favor?of?a?county?in?an?action?arising?from?a?rape?committed?by?an?off-duty?deputy?sheriff.?The?majority?attempts?to?distinguish?the?case?on?the?ground?that?the?officer?was?off?duty.?This?fact?played?no?part?in?the?court’s?decision.?The?rationale?of?the?decision?was?that?the?rape?was?outrageous?and?was?committed?solely?for?the?officer’s?benefit.?(Id.,?at?p.?457.)?Those?facts?would?remain?true?regardless?of?whether?the?officer?was?on?duty?or?off?duty.
The?two?cases?on?which?the?majority?relies?are?not?persuasive.?In?Desotelle?v.?Continental?Cas.?Co.?(1986)?136?Wis.2d?13?[400?N.W.2d?524],?the?court?affirmed?a?judgment?of?no?vicarious?liability?on?the?ground?that?the?jury’s?verdict?was?supported?by?the?evidence.?This?fact-specific?holding?provides?[54?Cal.3d?244]?little?guidance?one?way?or?the?other?for?our?case.?That?the?facts?of?the?case?supported?the?jury’s?verdict?does?not?mean?the?facts?in?our?case?support?this?jury’s?verdict.?In?Applewhite?v.?City?of?Baton?Rouge,?supra,?380?So.2d?119,?the?court?affirmed?a?judgment?against?a?city?for?rapes?committed?by?two?on-duty?officers.?Although?the?result?supports?the?majority’s?conclusion,?the?Louisiana?Court?of?Appeal’s?discussion?of?the?issue?was?brief-less?than?a?page-and?did?not?consider?the?significant?issues?raised?by?imposing?liability.?More?important,?neither?case?(Desotelle,?supra,?400?N.W.2d?524;?Applewhite,?supra,?380?So.2d?119)?was?decided?under?a?comprehensive?statutory?scheme?like?California’s?that?governs?public?entity?liability.
VII.?Conclusion
I?concur?in?the?judgment?reversing?the?Court?of?Appeal?decision.?I?do?so?on?the?narrow?basis?of?the?City’s?invited?error?as?to?the?jury?instruction?on?the?vicarious?liability?issue.?I?respectfully?decline,?however,?to?join?the?majority’s?unnecessary?holding?that?a?police?officer?may?act?”in?the?scope?of?…?employment,”?thus?exposing?his?blameless?public?employer?to?strict?tort?liability,?when?the?officer?rapes?a?citizen.?In?the?absence?of?contrary?legislation,?I?conclude,?an?officer?may?never?be?deemed?within?the?”scope?of?employment”?when?he?or?she?deviates?from?work?duties?to?commit?a?crime?unrelated?to?the?performance?of?law?enforcement?responsibilities.?Whether?the?taxpayers?must?absorb?the?cost?of?such?individual?misconduct?is?a?subject?within?the?exclusive?purview?of?the?Legislature,?which?cannot?have?anticipated?this?result.
Lucas,?C.?J.,?concurred.
FN?1.?Sergeant?Schroyer?did?not?appear?to?defend?the?action,?either?in?person?or?through?counsel.?Based?on?the?evidence?presented?to?the?jury?in?plaintiff’s?action?against?the?City,?the?trial?court?entered?judgment?finding?Schroyer?jointly?and?severally?liable?with?the?City?for?the?jury’s?$150,000?damage?award.?In?addition,?the?court?imposed?punitive?damages?of?$150,000?against?Schroyer.?Schroyer?did?not?appeal?the?judgment.
FN?2.?Two?of?the?seven?justices?signed?the?lead?opinion.?Three?justices?concurred?”in?the?majority’s?holding”?on?the?question?of?vicarious?liability,?and?did?not?express?disagreement?with?the?lead?opinion’s?analysis?of?that?issue;?they?dissented?on?an?unrelated?issue.?The?remaining?two?justices?would?have?held?the?school?district?vicariously?liable.
FN?3.?The?instruction?in?full?read:?”An?employer?is?liable?for?the?wrongful?acts?of?a?police?officer?who,?as?the?result?of?the?exercise?of?his?authority,?legally?causes?injury?even?though?the?wrongful?acts?occurred?without?the?employer’s?knowledge,?were?not?related?to?the?duties?he?was?employed?to?perform,?were?not?for?the?benefit?of?the?employer,?were?done?solely?for?the?personal?benefit?of?the?employee,?and?were?done?in?violations?[sic]?of?the?employer’s?rules?or?grant?of?authority.”
FN?4.?Justice?Baxter’s?concurring?opinion?asserts?that,?before?the?case?was?submitted?to?the?jury,?the?City?should?have?placed?on?the?record?its?objections?to?an?instruction?that?was?based?on?White?v.?Superior?Court,?supra,?166?Cal.App.3d?566.?This?contention?ignores?the?realities?of?trial?practice.?Experienced?litigators?know?that?many?trial?courts?conduct?unreported?instruction?conferences?and?permit?counsel?to?”make?their?record”?by?recording?their?objections?after?the?jury?has?retired?to?deliberate.?This?practice?promotes?judicial?efficiency,?because?it?allows?matters?to?be?placed?on?the?record?at?a?time?when?the?jury?will?not?be?kept?waiting.?We?see?no?reason?to?condemn?the?procedure?used?by?the?trial?court?in?this?case.
FN?5.?As?the?City?has?made?no?arguments?regarding?the?precise?wording?of?the?instruction,?we?express?no?views?on?its?appropriateness.
FN?6.?Because?this?is?the?City’s?contention,?the?facts?at?the?outset?of?this?opinion?have?been?stated?in?the?light?most?favorable?to?plaintiff.
FN?7.?We?note?that?the?San?Francisco?Police?Department?has?recently?adopted?this?internal?rule:?”Whenever?a?male?officer?transports?a?female?in?a?Department?vehicle,?for?whatever?reason,?he?shall?notify?Dispatch?of:?[?]?The?vehicle’s?starting?mileage.?[?]?The?location?from?which?he?is?leaving.?[?]?His?destination.?[?]?Upon?arriving?at?his?destination?the?officer?should?notify?Dispatch?that?he?has?arrived?and?broadcast?the?vehicle’s?ending?mileage.?Dispatch?confirms?each?of?the?officer’s?broadcasts.”?(S.F.?Police?Dept.?Information?Bull.?No.?90-96,?eff.?Nov.?21,?1990.)?We?do?not?suggest?that?this?policy?is?essential?to?deter?officers?from?engaging?in?sexual?misconduct;?it?merely?illustrates?the?type?of?measure?that?a?law?enforcement?agency?can?take?to?reduce?the?incidence?of?sexual?assaults?by?police?officers?on?duty.
FN?8.?Justice?Baxter’s?concurring?opinion?objects?to?the?majority?opinion?for?”fail[ing]?to?explain?what?additional?measures?the?City?could?or?should?practically?have?taken?to?prevent?[Sergeant?Schroyer’s]?intentional?sexual?misconduct.”?(Conc.?opn.?by?Baxter,?J.,?post,?p.?237.)?The?concurring?opinion?also?complains?that?”no?matter?what?the?City?does,?it?may?be?held?liable?for?a?police?officer’s?criminal?conduct?including?offenses?such?as?this?rape.”?(Conc.?opn.?by?Baxter,?J.,?post,?p.?237.)?These?objections?are?misplaced,?as?they?are?directed?at?the?doctrine?of?respondeat?superior?itself,?rather?than?its?application?to?the?facts?of?this?case.
Under?the?doctrine?of?respondeat?superior,?the?employer?is?held?vicariously?liable?for?tortious?conduct?of?its?employees?that?is?within?the?scope?of?employment.?The?employer’s?liability?is?unaffected?by?the?steps?it?has?taken?to?prevent?such?conduct.?How?best?to?prevent?similar?conduct?in?the?future?is?a?matter?left?to?the?employer;?the?doctrine?provides?an?incentive?for?the?employer?to?determine?the?appropriate?measures?to?implement.
The?Legislature?has?determined?that?the?doctrine?of?respondeat?superior?should?apply?to?employing?governmental?entities,?as?it?does?to?all?other?employers.?It?is?not?the?function?of?this?court?to?question?the?propriety?of?the?Legislature’s?decision.
FN?9.?Although?it?has?extended?immunity?to?governmental?entities?in?a?variety?of?other?circumstances,?the?Legislature?has?not?granted?them?immunity?from?liability?for?assaults?by?police?officers,?sexual?or?otherwise.
FN?10.?It?was?established?at?the?trial?that?the?Los?Angeles?Police?Department?has?a?policy,?similar?to?that?of?the?San?Francisco?Police?Department?(see?fn.?7,?ante),?which?requires?officers?on?duty?who?transport?persons?of?the?opposite?sex?to?report?the?time?and?the?mileage?on?the?vehicle’s?odometer?before?and?after?the?trip.?The?existence?of?such?a?policy?suggests?that?the?department?considers?it?neither?startling?nor?unexpected?that?its?officers?might?engage?in,?or?be?accused?of,?sexually?assaultive?conduct.
FN?11.?We?stress?that?our?conclusion?in?this?case?flows?from?the?unique?authority?vested?in?police?officers.?Employees?who?do?not?have?this?authority?and?who?commit?sexual?assaults?may?be?acting?outside?the?scope?of?their?employment?as?a?matter?of?law.?(See,?e.g.,?Rita?M.?v.?Roman?Catholic?Archbishop,?supra,?187?Cal.App.3d?1453?[priests?who?allegedly?seduced?teenage?parishioner?acted?outside?the?scope?of?employment].)
FN?12.?The?trial?court?permitted?plaintiff,?as?a?part?of?her?showing?of?damages?flowing?from?the?rape,?to?present?evidence?of?trauma?she?suffered?as?a?result?of?the?investigation?and?criminal?prosecution?of?Sergeant?Schroyer?after?the?sexual?assault.?On?appeal,?the?City?argued?that?it?was?immune?from?liability?for?damages?relating?to?the?criminal?prosecution.?(See????821.6,?815.2,?subd.?(b).)?The?Court?of?Appeal,?however,?did?not?reach?the?issue?because?of?its?conclusion?that?the?City?could?not?be?held?vicariously?liable?for?any?of?the?injuries?suffered?by?plaintiff.?We?express?no?view?as?to?the?proper?disposition?of?this?issue,?which?must?be?addressed?by?the?Court?of?Appeal?upon?remand?by?this?court.
FN?1.?1?Hale,?The?History?of?the?Pleas?of?the?Crown?634?(1st?Am.?ed.?1847).
FN?2.?See?Arabian,?The?Sexual?Assault?Counselor-Victim?Privilege:?Protection?of?a?Confidential?Communication,?Los?Angeles?Daily?Journal?(Nov.?7,?1980)?page?4.
FN?3.?See,?e.g.,?General?Statutes?of?Connecticut,?section?52-146k?(1990);?Florida?Statutes,?section?90.5035?(1990);?Kentucky?Revised?Statutes?Annotated,?Official?Edition,?section?421.2151?(Michie?1991);?Maine?Revised?Statutes?Annotated,?title?16,?section?53-A?(1989);?and?Annotated?Laws?of?Massachusetts,?chapter?233,?section?20J?(Law.?Co-op.?1991).
FN?4.?Estrich,?Real?Rape?(1987)?page?80?and?following.
FN?5.?Figures?released?by?the?federal?Bureau?of?the?Census?show?that?the?rate?of?reported?forcible?rapes?per?100,000?increased?nationally?from?18.7?in?1970?to?37.6?in?1988.?(U.S.?Bureau?of?the?Census,?Statistical?Abstract?of?the?U.S.:?1990?(1990)?p.?173.)
FN?6.?Brownmiller,?Against?Our?Will:?Men,?Women?and?Rape?(1975)?page?256.
FN?7.?Fisher?v.?United?States?(1946)?328?U.S.?463,?484?[90?L.Ed.?1382,?1394-1395,?66?S.Ct.?1318,?166?A.L.R.?1176]?(dis.?opn.).
FN?1.?The?majority?actually?penalizes?the?City?for?adopting?its?regulations?by?observing?that?their?adoption?shows?sexual?misconduct?by?officers?is?not?unexpected.?(Maj.?opn.,?ante,?at?p.?218,?fn.?10.)
FN?2.?The?concern?over?lack?of?insurance?may?apply?even?more?strongly?in?this?case.?After?John?R.,?supra,?48?Cal.3d?438,?we?held?that?Insurance?Code?section?533?excludes?coverage?for?sexual?molestation?of?a?child?as?a?matter?of?law.?(J.?C.?Penney?Casualty?Ins.?Co.?v.?M.?K.,?supra,?52?Cal.3d?1009.)?The?logical?corollary?is?that?coverage?for?rape?is?also?excluded.?Like?child?molestation,?rape?”is?always?intentional,?it?is?always?wrongful,?and?it?is?always?harmful.”?(Id.,?at?p.?1025,?original?italics.)?In?John?R.,?supra,?48?Cal.3d?438,?the?lead?opinion?was?concerned?with?scarce?insurance.?In?this?case,?we?might?be?faced?with?a?legally?mandated?unavailability?of?insurance?because?Insurance?Code?section?533?arguably?precludes?coverage?for?a?defendant?held?vicariously?liable,?despite?contrary?dictum?in?an?old?opinion?(Arenson?v.?Nat.?Automobile?&?Cas.?Ins.?Co.?(1955)?45?Cal.2d?81,?84?[286?P.2d?816]).