Facts

Andrew Hall was a Contra Costa County Sheriff's deputy working in Danville, California. On March 11, 2021, Officer Hall was responding to a report of someone throwing rocks from a freeway overpass when he encountered Tyrell Wilson. Prior to March 11th, Officer Hall had no previous interactions with Wilson, who reportedly had a history of mental illness and homelessness. After making contact with Wilson, Officer Hall followed him into an intersection asking him to "come here," to ask Wilson about the alleged rock throwing, but Wilson continued to walk away. Seconds later--and in the middle of the intersection--Wilson stopped and turned to face Officer Hall, who was 6 - 10 feet away, and pulled a knife from his pocket. In response, Officer Hall drew his gun and pointed it at Wilson. Wilson started yelling and making aggressive gestures while taking small steps towards Hall and brandishing his knife. Hall then shot Wilson above his right cheek. Video of the incident was released by the Sheriff's Office. Wilson was transported to the hospital via ambulance, where he was pronounced dead six days later. Tyrell Wilson's mother and father, Diane and Marvin, filed a wrongful death action against Officer Hall, Contra Costa County, the Town of Danville, the Town of Danville Chief of Police Allan Shields, and Sheriff David Livingston. Recently, and after the Wilson incident, a jury convicted Officer Andrew Hall for unlawfully firing his sidearm into a car driven by another man, Laudemer Arboleda, in 2019. Mr. Arboleda died from the shooting. Officer Hall had returned to duty after the shooting of Arboleda in his capacity as a patrol deputy in Danville.

PLAINTIFFS' CONTENTIONS: Plaintiffs contended that the killing of decedent was brutal, malicious, and done without just provocation or cause, proximately causing plaintiffs' injuries and resulting in damages. Plaintiffs claimed that decedent was obviously mentally impaired; was never suspected of any significant crime; and possessed no visible rocks. Plaintiffs claimed that decedent was not threatening anyone or defendant Hall, and was walking away from defendant Hall at the time of the shooting. Plaintiffs further argued that defendants' contention that decedent was threatening defendant Hall with a folding knife was not reflected in the video of the shooting. Plaintiffs contended that defendant Hall could have used a Taser, which he was armed with at the time of the shooting, and had ample opportunity to use de-escalation tactics. However, defendant Hall never made any effort to use reasonable de-escalation tactics. Plaintiffs alleged that defendant Hall acted under color of law by killing decedent without lawful justification. Plaintiffs further asserted that defendant Hall subjected decedent to excessive force, thereby depriving plaintiffs and decedent of the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures by defendant Hall's use of excessive force in unreasonably shooting and killing decedent, in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Plaintiffs asserted that defendant Hall, acting under color of law and without due process of law, deprived plaintiffs of their right to a familial relationship with decedent by use of unreasonable, unjustified deadly force and violence, causing injuries which resulted in decedent's death, all without provocation, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Plaintiffs alleged that high ranking Town of Danville officials, including high ranking police supervisors such as defendant Shields were aware of repeated acts of misconduct by defendant Hall, and ratified his prior misconduct in the shooting and killing of Arboleda just over two years prior. Plaintiffs argued that as a direct, foreseeable consequence of permitting that shooting, defendant Hall unreasonably shot and killed decedent.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS: Defendants contended that Officer Hall acted in self-defense and reasonably feared for his life when Tyrell Wilson was within six feet of him and walking towards the officer while yelling and brandishing a knife. Defendants also questioned the claimed damages.

Damages

Plaintiffs claimed they were mentally, physically, emotionally and financially injured, and damaged as a proximate result of decedent's wrongful death, including, but not limited to, the loss of decedent's familial relationships, comfort, protection, companionship, love, affection, solace, and moral support. Plaintiffs also claimed that they were entitled to recover for the reasonable value of funeral and burial expenses. Plaintiffs also sought damages incurred by decedent as well as punitive damages.

Result

The case settled for $4,500,000.