BH v. County of San Bernardino
California Supreme Court
62 Cal. 4th 168 (2015)
- Written by Haley Gintis, JD
Facts
In September 2008, Sheriff Kimberly Swanson (defendant) received a call from Christy Kinney. Kinney reported that two-year-old BH (plaintiff) had been abused by his father, Louis Sharples. Kinney was helping BH’s mother, Lauri H., raise BH. Swanson arrived at Kinney’s home to investigate the matter and examine BH. Swanson observed cuts and bruising above his eye and bruises on his arm and back. Swanson later spoke to Sharples, who claimed that BH had fallen. Swanson believed that the report was motivated by the custody dispute between Lauri H. and Sharples and submitted a report detailing the brief investigation to her supervisor (defendant). A few months later, BH was rushed to the hospital during a visit with Sharples. BH was unconscious, seizing, and suffering from severe head trauma. A forensic pediatrician determined that BH’s head trauma was the result of child abuse, specifically shaken baby syndrome. Following BH’s injuries, Lauri H. filed a claim on behalf of BH against San Bernardino, Swanson, and her supervisor (defendants), claiming that they had breached their mandatory duty to report or cross-report incidents of suspected child abuse and had acted negligently. The officers motioned for summary judgment, claiming that they had not breached a mandatory duty and that they were entitled to governmental immunities. The trial court granted the motion on the ground that Swanson had used her discretion not to cross-report the incident and was immune from liability. The matter was appealed. The court of appeals affirmed. The California Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Chin, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 804,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 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.