Camp

Camp v. State of California

Good Law
109 Cal. Rptr. 3d 676·184 Cal. App. 4th 967·2010 Cal. App. LEXIS 695
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMay 18, 2010B209176California4,952 words

Opinion

Opinion

Yegan, J.

Police routinely respond to emergencies, but they do not have a “legal duty” to do so. By that, we mean that an officer’s failure to respond to a request for assistance will not result in tort liability for the officer even if a member of the public is injured by the officer’s failure to act, i.e., his or her nonfeasance. If they do respond and their affirmative acts negligently cause harm to a person in need of assistance, their misfeasance may create a special relationship and result in tort liability As we shall explain, this tragic case involves an officer’s nonfeasance that did not alter the risk of harm to the person in need. Based upon California Supreme Court precedent, there is no basis for tort liability.

Melissa Camp, Lori Baker and Ray Medina, in various stages of intoxication, were passengers in Ryan Funk’s car when he drove it off a country road near Santa Maria. The car rolled over and came to rest, upright, in a dirt field. Funk was also intoxicated at the time. When California Highway Patrol (CHP) Officers Frank Lewis and Steven Koenig arrived to investigate the accident, Camp was lying on the ground near the car. Baker and Medina were sitting in the…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.