Munoz

Munoz v. City of Union City

Good Law
148 Cal. App. 4th 173·2007 Cal. App. LEXIS 278·2007 Daily Journal DAR 2807·55 Cal. Rptr. 3d 393·2007 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2239
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaFebruary 28, 2007A110121California5,204 words

Opinion

Opinion

Kline, J.

This is the second appeal in a case arising from the death of Lucilla Amaya in an incident with the Union City police. In the initial trial, the jury found the City of Union City and Officer Tod Woodward liable for negligence and battery, apportioning the negligence 45 percent to the city, 50 percent to the officer, and 5 percent to Lucilla. In the prior appeal, we upheld the finding of liability against Woodward for unreasonable use of force and against the city under principles of vicarious liability. We reversed the portion of the jury’s verdict against the city based on its direct negligence, however, and remanded with directions to the trial court to “enter a new judgment consistent with the jury’s verdict against [the officer] and this opinion.” The trial court held that the effect of our decision was to decrease by 45 percent the amount of plaintiffs’ (Lucilla’s family) recovery. Plaintiffs now contend the trial court erred in reducing the total amount of the judgment rather than apportioning a greater share of the liability to the officer. We agree and reverse the judgment.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS

In 1998, Lucilla Amaya was shot and killed by a Union…

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.