Liability of an Officer for Errors in Investigation or Losing Information

Assume you were in a tragically serious auto accident. You were taken by ambulance to a local hospital in Orange County, California. A witness gave an investigating officer a description of the car and license number causing the auto accident that fled the scene.  The officer did not call an “All Points Bulletin” (APB) for the car, and worse lost the information while at the scene. Also the physical evidence of paint transfer and parts of the other car could have helped locate the vehicle but the officer had it cleaned up and disposed of without preserving any of it. Do you have a claim against the officer or department?

In this day of “CSI,” the public assumes all investigations are conducted like television. In fact, that is not the case, with the majority of accident investigation insufficient. Many auto accident victims find themselves victimized again on the accident investigation by incompetent handling of the accident details and information by the investigating officers. While it is less frequent than in years past, particularly with greater police training and regulation of investigative techniques, auto accident investigation errors or incompleteness still happens with enough regularity that we write in the subject. You should not handle this type of case yourself, but rely on the competent services of an auto accident attorney. Call us at 1-888-752-7474 or Contact Us Online if you have any questions or would like a free consultation. However, let’s examine the law in this scenario as set forth by the California Supreme Court in Williams v. State of California, 34 Cal. 3d 18.

“In spite of the fact that our tax dollars support police functions, it is settled that the rules concerning the duty — or lack thereof — to come to the aid of another are applicable to law enforcement personnel in carrying out routine traffic investigations. Thus, the state highway patrol has the right, but not the duty, to investigate accidents or to come to the aid of stranded motorists. Nevertheless, although “no special relationship may exist between members of the California Highway Patrol and the motoring public generally, or between the Patrol and stranded motorists generally” when the state, through its agents, voluntarily assumes a protective duty toward a certain member of the public and undertakes action on behalf of that member, thereby inducing reliance, it is held to the same standard of care as a private person or organization.” Footnote: “As McCarthy v. Frost, supra, 33 Cal.3d 872, points out, section 2412 California Vehicle Code imposes no duty to investigate,  it is only permissive. We add the observation that the intended beneficiaries of any investigation that is undertaken are the People as prosecutors in criminal cases, not private plaintiffs in personal injury actions.”

“The breach of duty may be an affirmative act, which places the person in peril or increases the risk of harm as where an officer investigating an accident directed the plaintiff to follow him into the middle of the intersection where the plaintiff was hit by another car. The negligence may also constitute an omission or failure to act, where a deputy sheriff promised to warn a decedent if a prisoner, who had made threats on her life, was released. The county was held liable when the sheriff failed to warn.”

“Recovery has been denied, however, for injuries caused by the failure of police personnel to respond to requests for assistance, the failure to investigate properly, or the failure to investigate at all, where the police had not induced reliance on a promise, express or implied, that they would provide protection. (Hartzler v. City of San Jose (1975) 46 Cal.App.3d 6 [120 Cal.Rptr. 5] [police failed to respond to a plea made 45 minutes before the homicide]; Antique Arts Corp. v. City of Torrance (1974) 39 Cal.App.3d 588 [114 Cal.Rptr. 332] [police radio dispatcher delayed 10 minutes after alert before broadcasting burglary in progress]; McCarthy v. Frost, supra, 33 Cal.App.3d 872 [complaint alleged decedent was driving on a state highway at a particular time and place, highway patrol negligently failed to find him, and death was caused by failure to receive timely medical aid; held state and patrolman not liable].)”

If you are involved in such a situation, generally there is no liability for mistakes by an officer, but the circumstances should be closely investigated to see if you fall within one of the exceptions. Our attorneys can look at those situations for you and we will examine the details for free. Contact us at 1-888-752-7474 or Contact Us Online.