## Facts

- Parents sued a county after their five-year-old son was sexually assaulted and murdered by a juvenile offender temporarily released from county custody.
- The juvenile had been confined under court order and was under county custody and supervision through its probation authorities.
- The county allegedly knew the juvenile had extremely dangerous propensities toward young children and that sexual assaults and related violence were likely if he were released.
- The juvenile allegedly stated that, if released, he would kill a young child in the neighborhood, but did not name or otherwise identify a particular intended victim.
- The county released the juvenile on temporary leave to his mother’s home in the same neighborhood as the plaintiffs.
- The county allegedly did not warn the juvenile’s mother, local police, or parents of nearby young children about the release or the juvenile’s dangerous propensities.
- Within 24 hours of release, the juvenile sexually assaulted and murdered the plaintiffs’ child.
- The trial court sustained the county’s general demurrer without leave to amend and dismissed the action.

## Issues

1. Whether a county with custody of a dangerous juvenile has an affirmative duty to warn or protect neighbors, police, or the juvenile’s parent when the threatened victim is not specifically identifiable.
2. Whether statutory immunities bar liability for decisions to release a confined offender and to refrain from warning others about the release.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of California affirmed the judgment of dismissal.
- The court held the county owed no affirmative duty to warn the plaintiffs, police, the juvenile’s mother, or other local parents because the potential victims were not specifically identifiable.
- The court also held, independently, that the challenged release and related nonwarning decisions were protected by statutory immunity, including discretionary act immunity and release-decision immunity.

## Legal Principles

- Absent a special relationship and a specifically identifiable foreseeable victim, a public entity generally has no affirmative duty to control a third party’s criminal conduct or to warn those who may be endangered by it.
- A duty to warn recognized for threats against an identifiable victim does not extend to threats against a broad, undefined class (e.g., “a young child in the neighborhood”), where warnings would be indefinite and impracticable to meaningfully target.
- California Government Code § 820.2 can immunize public employees (and thus the public entity) for discretionary policy decisions, including decisions related to offender release and whether to issue warnings incident to that release.
- California Government Code § 845.8(a) immunizes a public entity for injuries resulting from determinations whether to parole or release a prisoner, including temporary release decisions treated as a form of “release.”

## Conclusion

The court rejected wrongful-death claims based on a juvenile’s temporary release and failure to warn because the threatened victims were not specifically identifiable and, in any event, statutory immunities shielded the county’s discretionary release-related decisions from tort liability.


Thompson v. County of Alameda, 27 Cal. 3d 741 (Cal. 1980)