Beltran-Serrano v. City of Tacoma
-
Sarah L. Swan
Abstract
In Tacoma, Washington, on a late June afternoon in 2013, a police officer brutally shot an unarmed, mentally-ill, middle-aged homeless man four times in the back with a Glock 45. He was not a suspect in any criminal wrongdoing, and horrified eyewitnesses confirmed that he was not posing a threat to anyone, including the officer, at the time of the shooting. The victim, Cesar Beltran-Serrano, survived, and subsequently sued the city for his injuries.
The case eventually landed at the Washington Supreme Court, where the court was asked to resolve two separate legal issues: does the public duty doctrine immunize localities from liability when an officer has affirmatively acted (rather than just failed to act), and can a police officer who intentionally shoots a person be liable in both negligence and intentional tort.
The court found in favor of the plaintiff on both issues. In so doing, the court created a viable and accessible path towards greater police accountability. On this basis alone, the decision deserves a spot in this symposium issue on the Great Tort Cases of the 21st Century. Yet the case does still more: its holdings are important not just for plaintiffs bringing claims against police, but for parties in cases far beyond the police/city context. Most notably, the issue of whether negligence can co-exist with intentional assault and battery claims is of particular importance to sexual assault tort litigation and potentially opens pathways for other contexts as well. The dual holdings in Beltran-Serrano thus hold much promise for those seeking social justice through tort law.
© 2023 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
Articles in the same Issue
- Frontmatter
- Symposium Articles
- Private Nuisance: The UK Supreme Court Take a View
- Liking the Intrusion Analysis in In Re Facebook
- Analog Analogies: Intel v. Hamidi and the Future of Trespass to Chattels
- What We Talk About When We Talk About the Duty of Care in Negligence Law: The Utah Supreme Court Sets an Example in Boynton v. Kennecott Utah Copper
- Disentangling Immigration Policy From Tort Claims for Future Lost Wages
- Sherman v. Department of Public Safety: Institutional Responsibility for Sexual Assault
- Putting “Duty” Back on Track
- Public Authority Liability for Careless Failure to Protect from Harm
- Unnecessary and Insufficient Factual Causes
- Beltran-Serrano v. City of Tacoma
- Main Article
- The Tort of Discrimination
Articles in the same Issue
- Frontmatter
- Symposium Articles
- Private Nuisance: The UK Supreme Court Take a View
- Liking the Intrusion Analysis in In Re Facebook
- Analog Analogies: Intel v. Hamidi and the Future of Trespass to Chattels
- What We Talk About When We Talk About the Duty of Care in Negligence Law: The Utah Supreme Court Sets an Example in Boynton v. Kennecott Utah Copper
- Disentangling Immigration Policy From Tort Claims for Future Lost Wages
- Sherman v. Department of Public Safety: Institutional Responsibility for Sexual Assault
- Putting “Duty” Back on Track
- Public Authority Liability for Careless Failure to Protect from Harm
- Unnecessary and Insufficient Factual Causes
- Beltran-Serrano v. City of Tacoma
- Main Article
- The Tort of Discrimination
