Martin v. City of San Jose

Background

Andy Martin sued the City of San Jose and Alexandre Vieira-Ribeiro, a City police officer, over a May 2, 2018 incident. Officer Ribeiro pursued Martin in a marked police car after dispatch reported that two men had threatened security guards and that one had reportedly displayed a knife. During the pursuit on a bike trail, the car hit Martin. Martin testified that the car then ran over him and backed over his ankle; Ribeiro testified that the collision was accidental and that he did not drive backward over Martin.

Martin asserted six causes of action:

Defendants sought summary judgment on every claim except negligence. Martin sought summary judgment on liability, but not damages, for excessive force and negligence.

Rulings on the claims

Unlawful seizure. The court granted Officer Ribeiro summary judgment. Martin did not brief this claim in opposition. The court also concluded that, even assuming the collision was a seizure, the dispatch report about a suspect brandishing a knife provided reasonable suspicion or probable cause to stop Martin.

Excessive force. The court denied both sides’ motions for summary judgment. An excessive-force claim requires force used during a seizure. The court held that a genuine dispute existed about whether Ribeiro intentionally hit Martin to stop him or accidentally collided with him while trying to cut him off. That factual dispute could not be resolved on summary judgment.

The court also held that a reasonable jury could find the force unreasonable. Viewed in Martin’s favor, dispatch did not identify Martin as the person who allegedly had a knife; no weapon was seen or recovered; Ribeiro did not know whether Martin or his cousin was the reported knife suspect; and there was no evidence that Ribeiro faced an immediate danger. A car striking a pedestrian could cause death or serious injury. The court therefore concluded that a jury could find that using the car to hit Martin was excessive force.

The court denied qualified immunity to Ribeiro on this claim. Qualified immunity protects an officer unless the officer violated a constitutional right that was clearly established at the time. The court concluded that, viewing the evidence in Martin’s favor, intentionally using potentially deadly force against a pedestrian who posed no immediate threat presented an obvious constitutional violation. It also rejected qualified immunity regarding the alleged backing over of Martin because, if intentional, that conduct occurred after Martin had already been subdued.

Unconstitutional custom or policy. The court granted the City summary judgment on this claim. Martin stated that he did not oppose the City’s motion on his claim that the City had an unconstitutional custom or policy.

Battery and Bane Act claims against Officer Ribeiro. The court granted Ribeiro summary judgment on both claims based on California Vehicle Code § 17004. That statute protects a public employee from civil-damages liability for injuries resulting from operating an authorized emergency vehicle while responding to an emergency call or immediately pursuing an actual or suspected law violator. The court rejected Martin’s argument that the statute applies only to accidental injuries.

Bane Act claim against the City. The court denied defendants’ motion as to the City. Unlike § 17004’s protection for a public employee, the statute does not protect a public entity. The City had not invoked a different statutory immunity for public agencies under California Vehicle Code § 17004.7.

Negligence. The court denied Martin’s motion for summary judgment against both defendants. Ribeiro would have § 17004 immunity if a jury found that he acted negligently. As to the City, which could be held responsible for Ribeiro’s conduct under a vicarious-liability theory, the court found a genuine dispute about whether Ribeiro was negligent. Evidence supporting Martin included the car’s close distance during the pursuit and supervisors’ conclusions that the collision could have been prevented if Ribeiro had turned farther away. But a jury could also find that Ribeiro did not negligently execute the turn or that Martin’s conduct caused the collision.

Disposition

The court denied Martin’s motion for summary judgment on the excessive-force and negligence claims. It granted defendants’ motion in part: summary judgment was granted on the unlawful-seizure, unconstitutional-custom-or-policy, and battery claims; summary judgment was granted to Officer Ribeiro, but not the City, on the Bane Act claim; and the motion was otherwise denied.

The claims left for trial were excessive force against Officer Ribeiro, negligence against the City, and the Bane Act claim against the City. The order disposed of Docket Nos. 47 and 48.