Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Only 11 weeks after denying review in a case holding government agencies liable for emergency dispatchers’ mistakes, the California Supreme Court on Wednesday agreed to review a case that says they’re not. All of the justices except Janice Rogers Brown, who was absent from the court, voted to review the 4th District Court of Appeal’s ruling in Eastburn v. Regional Fire Protection Authority, S107792. On May 15, four of the court’s seven justices rejected a chance to review the First District’s ruling in Chan v. City and County of San Francisco, S104759. Justice Kathryn Mickle Werdegar was recused from that vote, while Justices Brown and Ming Chin voted to hear the case. In Chan, the First District said the city of San Francisco could be held liable for a 911 dispatching mistake that allegedly led to the August 1998 death of Angelique Chan. In Eastburn, the 4th District rejected the First District’s ruling in holding that the Regional Fire Protection Authority, the Barstow Fire Protection District and the city of Victorville were not liable for dispatching errors that allegedly resulted in permanent injuries to a young girl electrocuted in a bathtub. While the Supreme Court often resolves conflicts between appellate courts, the decision to take Eastburn, as opposed to Chan, baffled Charles Sneathern, the Torrance solo practitioner who represented the losing side in Eastburn. “I have no idea [what's on the court's mind],” he said, “and I’m a little worried.” “My court of appeal [justices] said they are confident the Supreme Court will not follow the First District,” he said Wednesday. “And that was before the Supreme Court denied review by the city and county of San Francisco.” The 4th District criticized Chan for finding that the qualified immunity provided under government codes does not apply to 911 dispatching. “Absent bad faith or gross negligence,” the court ruled, “[government] defendants are immune for the acts of an emergency dispatcher in their employ.” Sneathern said he hopes that by appealing his losing case, he hasn’t ruined the victory that plaintiffs lawyer David Russo had earned in the San Francisco case in January.

This content has been archived. It is available exclusively through our partner LexisNexis®.

To view this content, please continue to Lexis Advance®.

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber? Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® is now the exclusive third party online distributor of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® customers will be able to access and use ALM's content by subscribing to the LexisNexis® services via Lexis Advance®. This includes content from the National Law Journal®, The American Lawyer®, Law Technology News®, The New York Law Journal® and Corporate Counsel®, as well as ALM's other newspapers, directories, legal treatises, published and unpublished court opinions, and other sources of legal information.

ALM's content plays a significant role in your work and research, and now through this alliance LexisNexis® will bring you access to an even more comprehensive collection of legal content.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.