Award wrongly cut in case of Black man killed by police, justices say

In a case involving a wrongful death complaint by the family of a Black man killed in 2012 by a Los Angeles County deputy sheriff who put a knee on his neck, the state Supreme Court reversed a Court of Appeal decision that had reduced a jury's $8 million noneconomic damages award because the deputy had been found only 20% responsible.

Instead, the case was remanded after Justice Ming W. Chin concluded state law "does not authorize a reduction in the liability of intentional tortfeasors for noneconomic damages based on the extent to which the negligence of other actors -- including the plaintiffs, any codefendants, injured parties, and nonparties -- contributed to the injuries in question."

The case of Darren Burley, filed by his children, carried strong echoes of the death of George Floyd, another Black man who died after a law enforcement officer subdued him by placing his knee on the back of the victim's head. Oral arguments in the case took place a week after Floyd's death.

While Chin stated on a footnote that his decision did not turn on racial issues but the interpretation of tort law, Justice Goodwin H. Liu drew parallels between the two cases in a pointed concurrence that called for a "reckoning" for "state-sanctioned violence" against Black people in the United States.

"But even as the wrongful death judgment here affords a measure of monetary relief to Burley's family, it does not acknowledge the troubling racial dynamics that have resulted in state-sanctioned violence, including lethal violence, against Black people throughout our history to this very day," Liu wrote in a concurrence joined by Justice Mariano-Florentino Cuellar.

The case, however, was decided on a more mundane question. In a civil complaint in which a jury divides up responsibility for the harm, can a court hold one person -- and his employer, the county -- solely responsible for all of the damages?

A Los Angeles County jury held Burley was 40% responsible for his own death. Sheriff's deputies responded to a Compton street after the man, high on PCP and cocaine according to the county's attorney, attacked a pregnant woman.

Two deputies, including David Aviles, wrestled Burley to the pavement and other deputies joined, according to Chin's opinion. A witness said one of the deputies, who appeared to be Aviles, was "choking" Burley and said deputies repeatedly hit him in the face with their flashlights and shot him with a taser.

Paramedics testified they could only start treating Burley after asking a deputy to get off him. They found no pulse, and he died 10 days later in the hospital.

A jury found Aviles 20% responsible for Burley's death due to his use of unreasonable force. Other deputies were found liable for the remaining 40% but the judge entered a ruling against only Aviles for the noneconomic damages.

A 2nd District Court of Appeal panel reversed that decision because the jury had divided up the responsibility for Burley's death. But Chin ruled that under Proposition 51, a state initiative passed in 1986, "intentional tortfeasors" do not escape liability if others contributed to an injury due to negligent actions. B.B., a minor, etc. et al. v. County of Los Angeles et al., 2020 DJDAR 8403 (California S. Ct., filed Aug. 20, 2018).

Olufela K. "Olu" Orange of the Orange Law Offices PC and Norman H. Pine of Pine Tillett Pine LLP argued for Burley's family and hailed Monday's ruling. Orange said he expects the county to call quickly to settle the lawsuit because interest has been adding up during the appeal.

Orange said in a telephone interview that while multiple factors contributed to Burley's death, "the person who engaged in intentional acts that caused harm is responsible for all of the harm."

Sabrina H. Strong, a partner with O'Melveny & Myers LLP who represented the county, could not be reached for comment Monday. During oral arguments, she said Proposition 51 "required apportionment," emphasizing the jury had found Aviles only 20% liable and arguing "there was no intent to use unreasonable force."