## Facts

- Deputies responded to reports that Darren Burley was assaulting a woman in the street and suspected he was under the influence of PCP.
- After Burley did not comply with commands, deputies forcibly restrained him face down on concrete; Deputy David Aviles applied substantial body weight to Burley’s upper back and head/neck area while other officers restrained Burley’s legs.
- Burley was tased multiple times, handcuffed, and had his legs restrained while remaining prone; soon after being fully restrained, his breathing became labored and he went limp.
- Paramedics found Burley unresponsive and pulseless; he died days later from lack of oxygen.
- Burley’s minor children sued the County and deputies for battery, negligence, and wrongful death.
- The jury found Aviles committed battery by using unreasonable force and assigned him 20% responsibility for death; it assigned 40% to Burley’s negligence and 40% to other officers’ negligence.
- The jury awarded $8 million in noneconomic damages; judgment imposed the full noneconomic award on Aviles based on the intentional-tort finding.

## Issues

1. Whether Civil Code § 1431.2(a) limits an intentional tortfeasor’s liability for noneconomic damages to the percentage of “fault” assigned to that defendant.
2. Whether an intentional tortfeasor may reduce noneconomic damages by relying on the decedent’s negligence or negligent conduct of other defendants under comparative fault principles.

## Decision

- The California Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal’s reduction of noneconomic damages.
- The Court held Civil Code § 1431.2(a) does not permit an intentional tortfeasor to apportion or reduce noneconomic damages based on others’ negligence.
- The Court reinstated the judgment imposing full noneconomic liability on Aviles for the $8 million award.

## Legal Principles

- Civil Code § 1431.2(a) (Proposition 51) limits noneconomic damages to several liability in a manner consistent with comparative fault doctrine, but it does not extend apportionment benefits to intentional tortfeasors.
- Comparative negligence and related apportionment concepts generally do not reduce liability for intentional torts; an intentional tortfeasor may not offset noneconomic liability by pointing to a victim’s negligence or negligent acts of others.
- A jury’s allocation of percentage responsibility for negligence does not convert an intentional-tort defendant’s noneconomic exposure into proportionate-only liability under § 1431.2(a).

## Conclusion

The court held that an officer found liable for an intentional tort (battery by unreasonable force) remains fully liable for noneconomic damages and cannot invoke Civil Code § 1431.2(a) to reduce that liability based on the comparative negligence of the decedent or other negligent actors.


B.B. v. County of Los Angeles, 471 P.3d 329 (Cal. 2020)