Bay Area Rapid Transit District v. Superior Court

Good Law
1995 Cal. App. LEXIS 885·38 Cal. App. 4th 141·44 Cal. Rptr. 2d 887·95 Daily Journal DAR 12269·95 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7206
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaSeptember 11, 1995A069328California1,172 words

Opinion

Opinion

King, J.

In November 1992, 19-year-old Jerrold Hall, who was Black, was shot and killed by a White police officer employed by the Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART). The underlying litigation was commenced against BART by Mr. Hall’s parents, Cornelius and Rose Mary Hall (the Halls), who seek damages for wrongful death and for civil rights violations made actionable by the Bane Act (Civ. Code, § 52.1), an anti-hate-crime statute. In the unpublished portion of this opinion we hold that two of the three Bane Act causes of action were not fairly reflected in the Halls’ government tort claim. In the published portion of this opinion we hold that the third Bane Act cause of action is defeated by a lack of standing. The Halls’ two causes of action for wrongful death are not affected by our ruling.

Petitioners, defendants below, are BART, BART Police Officer Richard Crabtree, and another BART employee. (Except when we are clearly referring to the individual actions of Crabtree, we will refer to petitioners in the collective as BART.) BART demurred to the three Bane Act causes of action in the Halls’ first amended complaint. The trial court overruled the demurrer, and BART seeks…

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.