Agenda - Planning Commission - 12/02/1997

Home

.. ~ ,- Page 8 - October 25, 1997 Z.B. Inspector - Zoning investigator injured during training sues state Soto v. State of California, 65 Cal.Rptr.2d 11 (California) 1997 Soto was a zoning investigator for San Luis Obispo County, Calif. He attended an officer safety and field tactics training course at the county's request. The course was given by the California Specialized Training Institute, a division of the state. Office of Emergency Services. The institute provided training to state agencies, cities, and counties in their planning and preparation for disasters. Part of the course included student participation in a mock hostage situation. One student played the role of a hostage in a car. Another student, playing the role of hostage taker, lay across the front seat of the car with his head down and operated the steering wheel, brake, and accelerator with his hands. The driver couldn't see where he was going, so he got directions over a radio from an instructor. So to was hurt during this exercise when the car hit him and pushed him into a building. Soto sued the state, claiming its negligence caused his injuries. The state asked for judgment without a trial, claiming immunity. The California Emergency Services Act stated the state and its political subdivisions with immunity "for any claim based upon the exercise or performance, or the failure to exercise or perform, a discretionary function" in carrying out the statute's provisions. The court granted the state's motion. Soto appealed, claiming the statute didn't relieve the state from liability. Soto argued the immunity extended under the emergency services statute applied only in an emergency. According to Soto, if the immunity was extended to the performance of all discretionary functions, the statue would give the state absolute immunity. DECISION: Affirmed. The state was entitled to immunity. The institute's planning and implemen- tation of the emergency training exercise were discretionary functions. The state had given the institute the responsibility of training municipal employees like Soto to respond to disasters. It was not for the court to decide the appropriateness of the design or ex~cution of emergency training exercises. That such exercises may have put the participants at risk did not lessen the inappropriateness of intervention by the court. Even if the exercise during which Soto was injured was negligently designed and performed, the state still had immunity. The statute gave the state immunity for the performance or failure to perform discretionary functions while carrying out the provisions of the state emergency services statute. The state's immunity was not limited to actual emergency situations. The statute clearly extended immunity to the performance of discretionary functions, which included training. see also: Johnson v. State of California, 447 P.2d 352 (1968). Farmers Insurance Exchange v. State of California, 221 Cal.Rptr. 225 (1985). 37