B.B. v. County of Los Angeles
California Court of Appeal
25 Cal. App. 5th 115, 235 Cal. Rptr. 3d 457 (2018)
- Written by Liz Nakamura, JD
Facts
The Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, including deputies David Aviles and Paul Beserra (defendants), responded to a call that Darren Burley was actively assaulting a woman. The deputies forced Burley to the ground in a prone, facedown position, and Aviles knelt on Burley’s back and neck to restrain him. Beserra successfully restrained Burley’s arms. After Burley was handcuffed and hobbled, Beserra supervised Burley, who was left face down. Shortly after, Burley’s breathing became labored, and he went limp. Beserra did not perform CPR. When paramedics arrived, Burley had no pulse, he was still face down, and Beserra had his knee pressed into Burley’s back. Burley died shortly after without ever regaining consciousness. The autopsy report indicated Burley had suffered brain death caused by a lack of oxygen following cardiac arrest. B.B. (plaintiff), Burley’s estranged wife, filed a wrongful-death action against Los Angeles County, Aviles, and Beserra. The jury found Aviles had committed battery against Burley, an intentional tort, and found that Beserra had been negligent. The jury apportioned the fault for Burley’s injury as follows: 40 percent to Burley, 20 percent to Aviles, 20 percent to Beserra, and 20 percent to the other responding deputies. The jury awarded B.B. $8 million in noneconomic damages and ordered Aviles to pay the full amount. Aviles appealed, arguing that the jury had erred by failing to apportion liability for damages in accordance with the jury’s comparative-fault determination.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Egerton, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.