M.P. v. City of Sacramento
Filed August 31, 2009
Cite as C057324

Vicarious Liability of the City Does not Cover Firefighters

M.P. (plaintiff) was a 24 year old woman working as the photographer for the Porn Star Costume Ball. Plaintiff filed a case against the city of Sacramento, its fire department and two of its firefighters Tom Mitchell (Mitchell) and Scott Singleton (Singleton) for sexual assaults committed by the said firefighters.

The case arose when Mitchell and Singleton invited the plaintiff to take a picture of them at the fire truck. As plaintiff recognized Singleton, she went with them. It was at the fire truck where the sexual assault took place.

Plaintiff alleged that the city and its fire department permitted its firefighters to pick up women and take them on their fire truck. Moreover, the firefighters took their advantage of their status. In fact, the firefighter drove the truck to the event while most of them were on duty. A captain was also present watching his crew drink and flirt with women.

The case against the fire department was dismissed.

The city moved for summary adjudication. It alleged that a sexual assault committed during a social event by an off duty firefighter (Singleton) and an on-duty firefighter (Mitchell) was outside the scope of employment. Hence, it was not among the conduct to which the city could be vicariously liable of.

Plaintiff did not oppose the motion. Instead, it filed a motion for continuance.

Meanwhile, Mitchell was placed under administrative leave but later on resigned. No further action was taken against him.

The trial court denied the plaintiff’s motion for continuance.

The court entered judgment in favor of the city and ordered plaintiff to pay the latter with costs. It also dismissed plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration or for relief filed pursuant to the Code of Civil Procedure section 473.

On appeal, the plaintiff alleged that the trial court abused its discretion when it denied her motion for continuance, entered a summary judgment in favor of the city and dismissed her motion for reconsideration.

The California Court of Appeal, in affirming the trial court’s decision, based its ruling in a case law holding that a public employer was only vicariously liable for sex crime committed by an on-duty police officer. This liability was only limited to acts of an on-duty police officer and did not extend to any other form of employment, including firefighting.

Hence, the non-consensual sexual assaults allegedly committed against the plaintiff by two firefighters was, as a matter of law, not conduct within the scope of firefighters' employment and could not support a finding that city was vicariously liable for the harm.