DOCSLIB.ORG

CA, a MINOR, ETC., Plaintiff

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
CA, a MINOR, ETC., Plaintiff Case No. S188982 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA __________________________ C.A., A MINOR, ETC., Plaintiff and Appellant, v. WILLIAM S. HART UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al., Defendants and Respondents. __________________________ On Appeal from a Decision of the Court of Appeal Second Appellate District, Division One, Case No. B217985 Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No. PC 044428 The Honorable Melvin Sandvig APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF AND PROPOSED AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF OF THE CALIFORNIA STATE ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES AND LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS AND RESPONDENTS WILLIAM S. HART UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT __________________________ Jennifer B. Henning (SBN 193915) California State Association of Counties 1100 K Street, Suite 101 Sacramento, CA 95814-3941 Telephone: (916) 327-7534 Facsimile: (916) 443-8867 Attorney for Amicus Curiae California State Association of Counties and League of California Cities The California State Association of Counties (“CSAC”) and the League of California Cities (“League”) seek leave to file the attached amicus brief in support of Defendants and Respondents, William S. Hart Unified High School District and Golden Valley High School. The League of California Cities is an association of 466 California cities dedicated to protecting and restoring local control to provide for the public health, safety, and welfare of their residents, and to enhance the quality of life for all Californians. The League is advised by its Legal Advocacy Committee, which is comprised of 24 city attorneys from all regions of the State. The Committee monitors litigation of concern to municipalities, and identifies those cases that are of statewide or nationwide significance. The Committee has identified this case as being of such significance. The California State Association of Counties (CSAC) is a non-profit corporation. The membership consists of the 58 California counties. CSAC sponsors a Litigation Coordination Program, which is administered by the County Counsels’ Association of California and is overseen by the Association’s Litigation Overview Committee, comprised of county counsels throughout the state. The Litigation Overview Committee monitors litigation of concern to counties statewide and has determined that this case is a matter affecting all counties. 1 The issues presented in this case implicate the California Government Claims Act and its restriction of public entity liability to statutory violations. Resolution of the issue of whether a public entity can be found vicariously liable for the alleged negligent hiring, retention or oversight of an employee is critical for cities and counties throughout the State. Permitting vicarious liability claims against a public entity for something other than an identifiable violation by a public employee of a specific duty owed to a plaintiff essentially allows plaintiffs to end run the limitation on public entity liability by imposing liability on public agencies for conduct outside their employees’ course and scope of employment. It would greatly expand public entity liability, is contrary to the statutory scheme of public liability, and runs counter to long-standing case law. California cities and counties are familiar with the issues before this Court and the scope of their presentation, and believe that further briefing on public entity liability would be helpful. Specifically, to the extent plaintiff argues that general vicarious liability of a public agency exists for negligent hiring and supervision absent a special relationship between the offending agency employee and the plaintiff, CSAC and the League present additional briefing on the law refuting that contention. For the foregoing reasons, CSAC respectfully requests that the Court accept the accompanying amicus curiae brief. 2 Dated: Respectfully submitted, By: ________________________ JENNIFER B. HENNING Attorney for Amicus Curiae California State Association of Counties and League of California Cities 3 Case No. S188982 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA __________________________ C.A., A MINOR, ETC., Plaintiff and Appellant, v. WILLIAM S. HART UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al., Defendants and Respondents. __________________________ On Appeal from a Decision of the Court of Appeal Second Appellate District, Division One, Case No. B217985 Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No. PC 044428 The Honorable Melvin Sandvig [PROPOSED] AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF OF THE CALIFORNIA STATE ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES AND LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS AND RESPONDENTS WILLIAM S. HART UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT __________________________ Jennifer B. Henning (SBN 193915) California State Association of Counties 1100 K Street, Suite 101 Sacramento, CA 95814-3941 Telephone: (916) 327-7534 Facsimile: (916) 443-8867 Attorney for Amicus Curiae California State Association of Counties and League of California Cities TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES.........................................................................ii INTRODUCTION.........................................................................................1 ARGUMENT ................................................................................................2 I. PUBLIC ENTITY LIABILITY, WHETHER DIRECT OR VICARIOUS, MUST BE ROOTED IN STATUTORY OBLIGATIONS...2 A. The Government Claims Act Requires a Specified Statutory Ground for Allegations for Direct Negligence of a Public Entity ..........................2 B. Vicarious Liability Requires Specific Elements: An Individual Employee Owing a Duty in the Same Manner as a Private Individual, and a Breach of that Duty by the Employee, Which Breach Causes Plaintiff’s Harm ..........................................................................................................6 1. Plaintiff’s argument has the effect of imposing liability for acts outside of the course and scope of employment ....................................7 2. Plaintiff must show that a supervising employee was or could be found liable ............................................................................................9 II. EASTBURN AND MUNOZ ESTABLISH CLEAR LINES BETWEEN DIRECT AND VICARIOUS LIABILITY THAT ARE BLURRED BY PLAINTIFF’S THEORIES ON LIABILITY..............................................12 CONCLUSION ...........................................................................................17 CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE......................................................19 i TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES Becerra v. County of Santa Cruz (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 1450 ....................2 Berumen v. Los Angeles County Dept. of Health Services (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 372.......................................................................................16 City of Santa Cruz v. Municipal Court (1989) 49 Cal.3d 74 ........................6 Delfino v. Agilent Technologies, Inc. (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 790............11 Eastburn v. Regional Fire Protection Authority (2003) 31 Cal.4th 1175......................................................................passim Grudt v. City of Los Angeles (1970) 2 Cal.3d 575 ........................................7 Hess v. Ford Motor Co. (2002) 27 Cal.4th 516 ............................................5 Hoff v. Vacaville Unified School Dist. (1998) 19 Cal.4th 925......................3 John R. v. Oakland Unified School District (1989) 48 Cal.3d 438...............7 Kelly v. Methodist Hospital of So. California (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1108.........5 Lloyd v. County of Los Angeles (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 320.....................16 Miklosy v. Regents of the University of California (2008) 44 Cal.4th 876..............................................................................16 Munoz v. City of Union City (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 1077.................passim Rodriguez v. Inglewood Unified School Dist. (1986) 186 Cal.App.3d 707 ..3 Searcy v. Hemet Unified School Dist. (1986) 177 Cal.App.3d 792 ..............4 Valencia v. County of Sonoma (2007) 158 Cal.App.4th 644 ......................16 Weaver v. State of California (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 188..........................11 ii White v. Ultramar, Inc. (1999) 21 Cal.4th 563 .............................................5 Zelig v. County of Los Angeles (2002) 27 Cal.4th 1112 .........................3, 13 Zuniga v. Housing Authority (1995) 41 Cal.App.4th 82...............................3 STATUTES Gov. Code, § 810 et seq.................................................................................2 Gov. Code, § 815.................................................................................2, 8, 12 Gov. Code, § 815.2..................................................................................8, 11 Gov. Code, § 820...........................................................................................8 Gov. Code, § 820.8......................................................................................11 OTHER AUTHORITIES Recommendation Relating to Sovereign Immunity (Jan. 1963) 4 Cal. Law Revision Com. Rep. (1963) p. 840 ............................................................5 Sen. Com. on Judiciary, Rep. on Sen. Bill No. 42 (1963 Reg. Sess.) Sen. J. (1963 Reg. Sess.), p. 1888 .........................................................................5 iii INTRODUCTION The facts alleged in this case are troubling. According to the complaint, a student was abused by a person he should have been able to trust. If the allegations are
Load more

Recommended publications
  • OSLIN, DEBORAH JOYCE, ) ) Case No. 17-11214-R Debtor. ) Chapter 7 ______
    Case 17-01034-R Document 14 Filed in USBC ND/OK on 01/24/18 Page 1 of 21 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA IN RE: ) Filed/Docketed ) Jan 24, 2018 OSLIN, DEBORAH JOYCE, ) ) Case No. 17-11214-R Debtor. ) Chapter 7 ________________________________________________________________________ MAXINE ARMSTRONG, as ) Guardian of the Person and Estate ) of Adrian Armstrong, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) Adv. No. 17-1034-R ) DEBORAH OSLIN, ) ) Defendant. ) ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS CLAIMS UNDER 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6) AND § 523(a)(9) Before the Court is the Motion to Dismiss Claims Under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6) and § 523(a)(9) (Adv. Doc. 5) (“Motion to Dismiss”) filed on November 6, 2017, by Defendant/Debtor Deborah Oslin (“Oslin”), and the response and brief in support (Adv. Doc. 9) (“Response”) filed on November 20, 2017, by Plaintiff Maxine Armstrong, as Guardian of the Person and Estate of Adrian Armstrong (“Armstrong”). On October 11, 2017, Armstrong filed a Complaint . for Determination of: 1) Non- Dischargeability; and 2) Objections to Debtor’s Discharge, Pursuant to Sections 523 and 727, Respectively, of the Bankruptcy Code (Adv. Doc. 1) (“Complaint”). Oslin seeks dismissal only of the claims asserted under 11 U.S.C. § 523. Case 17-01034-R Document 14 Filed in USBC ND/OK on 01/24/18 Page 2 of 21 I. Jurisdiction The Court has jurisdiction of this proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1334, 157(a), and 157(b)(1) and (2)(I) and (J), and Local Civil Rule 84.1(a) of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma.
    [Show full text]
  • Section 7: Criminal Offense, Criminal Responsibility, and Commission of a Criminal Offense
    63 Section 7: Criminal Offense, Criminal Responsibility, and Commission of a Criminal Offense Article 15: Criminal Offense A criminal offense is an unlawful act: (a) that is prescribed as a criminal offense by law; (b) whose characteristics are specified by law; and (c) for which a penalty is prescribed by law. Commentary This provision reiterates some of the aspects of the principle of legality and others relating to the purposes and limits of criminal legislation. Reference should be made to Article 2 (“Purpose and Limits of Criminal Legislation”) and Article 3 (“Principle of Legality”) and their accompanying commentaries. Article 16: Criminal Responsibility A person who commits a criminal offense is criminally responsible if: (a) he or she commits a criminal offense, as defined under Article 15, with intention, recklessness, or negligence as defined in Article 18; IOP573A_ModelCodes_Part1.indd 63 6/25/07 10:13:18 AM 64 • General Part, Section (b) no lawful justification exists under Articles 20–22 of the MCC for the commission of the criminal offense; (c) there are no grounds excluding criminal responsibility for the commission of the criminal offense under Articles 2–26 of the MCC; and (d) there are no other statutorily defined grounds excluding criminal responsibility. Commentary When a person is found criminally responsible for the commission of a criminal offense, he or she can be convicted of this offense, and a penalty or penalties may be imposed upon him or her as provided for in the MCC. Article 16 lays down the elements required for a finding of criminal responsibility against a person.
    [Show full text]
  • 2014 ASC Day 2-5 Vicarious Liability.Pdf
    Vicarious Liability Definition: liability based not on a person’s own wrongdoing, but rather on that person’s relationship to the wrongdoer. What Relationships Are We Talking About? Parent may be responsible for acts of children. Employers (including corporations) may be responsible for acts of employees. Employers are responsible for acts of independent contractors in case of “non- delegable duties.” Principals may be responsible for acts of agents. One partner may be responsible for acts of another partner. One person engaged in a joint enterprise may be responsible for the acts of another. The owner of a car may be responsible for the acts of the driver. NOTE: All of these individuals are responsible for their own negligent actions, but that is not the subject of this handout. In these cases, we’re discussing holding a person liable for another’s injury, even though the person has not behaved negligently or otherwise done anything wrong. Parent May Be Responsible for Acts of Children Essential Elements Defendant’s child was under 18. Child maliciously or willfully injured plaintiff or destroyed plaintiff’s property. Amount of actual damages. Limitations Total recovery may not exceed $2,000. Fact that parent no longer has custody and control (whether by court order or agreement) is complete defense. Employer May Be Responsible for Acts of Employees Essential Elements: Negligent person was employed by defendant. Negligent person was acting within scope of employment, or employer authorized the employee to act tortiously or employer later ratified employee’s tortious acts. Amount of actual damages. DGL/SOG/2014 The courts have said that an employee acts within the scope of his employment if his actions were for the purpose of in some way furthering the business of the employer.
    [Show full text]
  • The Unnecessary Crime of Conspiracy
    California Law Review VOL. 61 SEPTEMBER 1973 No. 5 The Unnecessary Crime of Conspiracy Phillip E. Johnson* The literature on the subject of criminal conspiracy reflects a sort of rough consensus. Conspiracy, it is generally said, is a necessary doctrine in some respects, but also one that is overbroad and invites abuse. Conspiracy has been thought to be necessary for one or both of two reasons. First, it is said that a separate offense of conspiracy is useful to supplement the generally restrictive law of attempts. Plot- ters who are arrested before they can carry out their dangerous schemes may be convicted of conspiracy even though they did not go far enough towards completion of their criminal plan to be guilty of attempt.' Second, conspiracy is said to be a vital legal weapon in the prosecu- tion of "organized crime," however defined.' As Mr. Justice Jackson put it, "the basic conspiracy principle has some place in modem crimi- nal law, because to unite, back of a criniinal purpose, the strength, op- Professor of Law, University of California, Berkeley. A.B., Harvard Uni- versity, 1961; J.D., University of Chicago, 1965. 1. The most cogent statement of this point is in Note, 14 U. OF TORONTO FACULTY OF LAW REv. 56, 61-62 (1956): "Since we are fettered by an unrealistic law of criminal attempts, overbalanced in favour of external acts, awaiting the lit match or the cocked and aimed pistol, the law of criminal conspiracy has been em- ployed to fill the gap." See also MODEL PENAL CODE § 5.03, Comment at 96-97 (Tent.
    [Show full text]
  • The Boundaries of Vicarious Liability: an Economic Analysis of the Scope of Employment Rule and Related Legal Doctrines
    University of Chicago Law School Chicago Unbound Journal Articles Faculty Scholarship 1987 The Boundaries of Vicarious Liability: An Economic Analysis of the Scope of Employment Rule and Related Legal Doctrines Alan O. Sykes Follow this and additional works at: https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/journal_articles Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Alan O. Sykes, "The Boundaries of Vicarious Liability: An Economic Analysis of the Scope of Employment Rule and Related Legal Doctrines," 101 Harvard Law Review 563 (1987). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at Chicago Unbound. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal Articles by an authorized administrator of Chicago Unbound. For more information, please contact [email protected]. VOLUME 101 JANUARY 1988 NUMBER 3 HARVARD LAW REVIEW1 ARTICLES THE BOUNDARIES OF VICARIOUS LIABILITY: AN ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF THE SCOPE OF EMPLOYMENT RULE AND RELATED LEGAL DOCTRINES Alan 0. Sykes* 441TICARIOUS liability" may be defined as the imposition of lia- V bility upon one party for a wrong committed by another party.1 One of its most common forms is the imposition of liability on an employer for the wrong of an employee or agent. The imposition of vicarious liability usually depends in part upon the nature of the activity in which the wrong arises. For example, if an employee (or "servant") commits a tort within the ordinary course of business, the employer (or "master") normally incurs vicarious lia- bility under principles of respondeat superior. If the tort arises outside the "scope of employment," however, the employer does not incur liability, absent special circumstances.
    [Show full text]
  • Definitions of Child Abuse and Neglect
    STATE STATUTES Current Through March 2019 WHAT’S INSIDE Defining child abuse or Definitions of Child neglect in State law Abuse and Neglect Standards for reporting Child abuse and neglect are defined by Federal Persons responsible for the child and State laws. At the State level, child abuse and neglect may be defined in both civil and criminal Exceptions statutes. This publication presents civil definitions that determine the grounds for intervention by Summaries of State laws State child protective agencies.1 At the Federal level, the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment To find statute information for a Act (CAPTA) has defined child abuse and neglect particular State, as "any recent act or failure to act on the part go to of a parent or caregiver that results in death, https://www.childwelfare. serious physical or emotional harm, sexual abuse, gov/topics/systemwide/ or exploitation, or an act or failure to act that laws-policies/state/. presents an imminent risk of serious harm."2 1 States also may define child abuse and neglect in criminal statutes. These definitions provide the grounds for the arrest and prosecution of the offenders. 2 CAPTA Reauthorization Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-320), 42 U.S.C. § 5101, Note (§ 3). Children’s Bureau/ACYF/ACF/HHS 800.394.3366 | Email: [email protected] | https://www.childwelfare.gov Definitions of Child Abuse and Neglect https://www.childwelfare.gov CAPTA defines sexual abuse as follows: and neglect in statute.5 States recognize the different types of abuse in their definitions, including physical abuse, The employment, use, persuasion, inducement, neglect, sexual abuse, and emotional abuse.
    [Show full text]
  • Guide to Social Media: Risks and Opportunities for Business
    GUIDE TO SOCIAL MEDIA RISKS AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR BUSINESS Contents Introduction 1 Monitoring third-party social media sites for content 11 What do we mean by “social media”? 2 What are your options for defending yourself? 11 What do you need to consider? 2 Who’s liable for content? 11 Social media providers’ terms of use 2 Self-help mechanisms 11 The standard terms 3 Taking down fake sites 12 Creating and maintaining a social media presence 4 Defamation and corporations 12 Misleading and deceptive conduct 13 Planning and establishing a social media presence 4 Injurious falsehood 13 Establishing social media communication responsibility 4 Discrimination 13 Social media governance strategy 4 Criminal sanctions for trolling 13 Promotional activity and advertising issues 5 Practical steps and matters to consider 14 Continuous disclosure obligations and social media 5 Litigate or engage? 14 Discrimination 6 Developing a crisis management plan 14 Why you should monitor your own social media Assessing the risk in user-generated content sites for objectionable content 6 on third-party sites 15 What should you do when you find How will you respond? 15 objectionable content? 7 Steps to take to get material removed from Responding to negative comments 8 third-party sites 15 Should you remove content? Where is something “published”? 16 Recordkeeping 8 Obtaining social media content for use in litigation 16 Protecting your reputation from attacks Issuing subpoenas on social media opertors 16 by others on social media 9 Employee use of social media
    [Show full text]
  • False Statements and Perjury: a Sketch of Federal Criminal Law
    False Statements and Perjury: A Sketch of Federal Criminal Law Charles Doyle Senior Specialist in American Public Law May 11, 2018 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov 98-807 False Statements and Perjury: A Sketch of Federal Criminal Law Summary Federal courts, Congress, and federal agencies rely upon truthful information in order to make informed decisions. Federal law therefore proscribes providing the federal courts, Congress, or federal agencies with false information. The prohibition takes four forms: false statements; perjury in judicial proceedings; perjury in other contexts; and subornation of perjury. Section 1001 of Title 18 of the United States Code, the general false statement statute, outlaws material false statements in matters within the jurisdiction of a federal agency or department. It reaches false statements in federal court and grand jury sessions as well as congressional hearings and administrative matters but not the statements of advocates or parties in court proceedings. Under Section 1001, a statement is a crime if it is false regardless of whether it is made under oath. In contrast, an oath is the hallmark of the three perjury statutes in Title 18. The oldest, Section 1621, condemns presenting material false statements under oath in federal official proceedings. Section 1623 of the same title prohibits presenting material false statements under oath in federal court proceedings, although it lacks some of Section 1621’s traditional procedural features, such as a two-witness requirement. Subornation of perjury, barred in Section 1622, consists of inducing another to commit perjury. All four sections carry a penalty of imprisonment for not more than five years, although Section 1001 is punishable by imprisonment for not more than eight years when the offense involves terrorism or one of the various federal sex offenses.
    [Show full text]
  • Around Frolic and Detour, a Persistent Problem on the Highway of Torts William A
    Campbell Law Review Volume 19 Article 4 Issue 1 Fall 1996 January 1996 Automobile Insurance Policies Build "Write-Away" Around Frolic and Detour, a Persistent Problem on the Highway of Torts William A. Wines Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.campbell.edu/clr Part of the Insurance Law Commons Recommended Citation William A. Wines, Automobile Insurance Policies Build "Write-Away" Around Frolic and Detour, a Persistent Problem on the Highway of Torts, 19 Campbell L. Rev. 85 (1996). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarly Repository @ Campbell University School of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Campbell Law Review by an authorized administrator of Scholarly Repository @ Campbell University School of Law. Wines: Automobile Insurance Policies Build "Write-Away" Around Frolic an AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE POLICIES BUILD "WRITE-AWAY" AROUND FROLIC AND DETOUR, A PERSISTENT PROBLEM ON THE HIGHWAY OF TORTS WILLIAM A. WINESt Historians trace the origin of the doctrine of frolic and detour to the pronouncement of Baron Parke in 1834.1 The debate over the wisdom and the theoretical underpinnings of the doctrine seems to have erupted not long after the birth of the doctrine. No less a scholar than Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., questioned whether the doctrine was contrary to common sense.2 This doc- trine continued to attract legal scholars who were still debating the underlying policy premises as the doctrine celebrated its ses- quicentennial and headed toward the second century mark.3 However, the main source of cases which test the doctrine, namely automobile accidents, has started to decline, at least insofar as it involves "frolic and detour" questions and thus the impact of this doctrine may becoming minimized.4 t William A.
    [Show full text]
  • Vicarious Liability
    STATE OF FLORIDA TRANSPORTATION COMPENDIUM OF LAW Kurt M. Spengler Wicker, Smith, O’Hara, McCoy & Ford, P.A. 390 N. Orange Ave., Suite 1000 Orlando, FL 32802 Tel: (407) 843‐3939 Email: [email protected] www.wickersmith.com Christopher Barkas Carr Allison 305 S. Gadsden Street Tallahassee, FL 32301 Tel: (850) 222‐2107 Email: [email protected] L. Johnson Sarber III Marks Gray, P.A. 1200 Riverplace Boulevard, Suite 800 Jacksonville, FL 32207 Tel: (904) 398‐0900 Email: [email protected] www.marksgray.com A. Elements of Proof for the Derivative Negligence Claims of Negligent Entrustment, Hiring/Retention and Supervision 1. Respondeat Superior a. What are the elements necessary to establish liability under a theory of Respondeat Superior? Under Florida law, an employer is only vicariously liable for an employee's acts if the employee was acting to further the employer's interest through the scope of the employee’s employment at the time of the incident. An employee acts within the scope of his employment only if (1) his act is of the kind he is required to perform, (2) it occurs substantially within the time and space limits of employment, and (3) is activated at least in part by a purpose to serve the master. Kane Furniture Corp. v. Miranda, 506 So.2d 1061 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987). Additionally, once an employee deviates from the scope of his employment, he may return to that employment only by doing something which meaningfully benefits his employer's interests. Borrough’s Corp. v. American Druggists’ Insur. Co., 450 So.2d 540 (Fla.
    [Show full text]
  • False Statements and Perjury: an Overview of Federal Criminal Law
    False Statements and Perjury: An Overview of Federal Criminal Law Charles Doyle Senior Specialist in American Public Law May 11, 2018 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov 98-808 False Statements and Perjury: An Overview of Federal Criminal Law Summary Federal courts, Congress, and federal agencies rely upon truthful information in order to make informed decisions. Federal law therefore proscribes providing the federal courts, Congress, or federal agencies with false information. The prohibition takes four forms: false statements; perjury in judicial proceedings; perjury in other contexts; and subornation of perjury. Section 1001 of Title 18 of the United States Code, the general false statement statute, outlaws material false statements in matters within the jurisdiction of a federal agency or department. It reaches false statements in federal court and grand jury sessions as well as congressional hearings and administrative matters but not the statements of advocates or parties in court proceedings. Under Section 1001, a statement is a crime if it is false, regardless of whether it is made under oath. In contrast, an oath is the hallmark of the three perjury statutes in Title 18. The oldest, Section 1621, condemns presenting material false statements under oath in federal official proceedings. Section 1623 of the same title prohibits presenting material false statements under oath in federal court proceedings, although it lacks some of Section 1621’s traditional procedural features, such as a two-witness requirement. Subornation of perjury, barred in Section 1622, consists of inducing another to commit perjury. All four sections carry a penalty of imprisonment for not more than five years, although Section 1001 is punishable by imprisonment for not more than eight years when the offense involves terrorism or one of the various federal sex offenses.
    [Show full text]
  • Vicarious Liability: Whose Liability Is It Anyway?
    Vicarious Liability: whose liability is it anyway? On 1 April 2020 the Supreme Court handed down judgment in MW Morrison Supermarkets plc v Various Claimants [2020] UKSC 12 and Barclays Bank plc v Various Claimants [2020] UKSC 13, the latest in the recent line of cases focussed on the nature, scope and development of the doctrine of vicarious liability. Amanda Savage QC and Nick Broomfield consider the developments in the law of vicarious liability and the position of the law following the Supreme Court’s recent decisions in MW Morrison Supermarkets plc v Various Claimants and Barclays Bank plc v Various Claimants. Introduction 1. The Courts have been keen to emphasise that the law of vicarious liability is “on the move”.1 This is not in itself a surprise, as judges and academics have regularly remarked upon the need for vicarious liability to reflect employment and business practices as they evolve and develop. The need for the law to reflect reality has resulted in the expansion of the doctrine of vicarious liability, most notably beyond its traditional limits of employer and employee to those in a relationship “akin to employment”. 2. Notwithstanding the significant attention that the doctrine has received, the broad test for imposing vicarious liability remains well settled. In short, there are two elements that have to be shown before a person (or organisation) can be made vicariously liable for the actions of another: 1 Various Claimants v Catholic Child Welfare Society [2013] AC 1 (“Christian Brothers”), per Lord Phillips at paragraph 19. (1) First, there must be a relationship between the two persons which makes it fair, just and reasonable for the law to make one pay for the wrongs committed by another.
    [Show full text]