Thompson v. County of Alameda

Supreme Court of California · 1980 · Torts

TortsGovernment Code section 820.2Government Code section 845.8release of offenderduty to warnidentifiable victimspecial relationshipdiscretionary immunity

Facts

Plaintiffs lived near the home of a juvenile offender's mother. The County had previously held the juvenile in custody, knew he had extremely dangerous violent propensities toward young children, and knew he had said that if released he would kill a young child in the neighborhood, though he did not identify any particular child. The County released him on temporary leave to his mother's custody without warning his mother, local police, or nearby parents. Within 24 hours, the juvenile murdered plaintiffs' son in the garage of his mother's home.

Issue

Whether Alameda County could be held liable in tort for releasing the juvenile, for selecting and supervising his mother as custodian, or for failing to warn the mother, police, or neighborhood parents about the juvenile's dangerous propensities and generalized threat. More specifically, the court considered whether statutory immunity barred the claims and whether the County owed any duty to warn under these facts.

Rule

A public entity is immune from tort liability for injuries resulting from discretionary decisions to release an offender and from policy decisions integral to the terms and conditions of that release, including selecting a custodian and determining the degree of supervision, under Government Code sections 820.2 and 845.8. Separately, public authorities have no affirmative duty to warn of the release of an offender who has made nonspecific threats against nonspecific victims; any duty to warn depends on a prior threat to a specific, readily identifiable victim or group of victims who can be effectively warned.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Sacramento, a county juvenile services department released 17-year-old Leo Mendez from secure detention for a weekend home visit after staff debated his violent history and rehabilitation prospects. Within hours, Leo attacked a stranger at a bus stop. The injured stranger sues the county, alleging the decision to release Leo was negligent.

Is the county most likely liable on the negligent-release claim?

Explanation. The majority held that deciding whether to release an offender is a discretionary policy determination protected by Government Code section 820.2 and also specifically covered by section 845.8 for injuries resulting from determining whether to release. The timing of the later assault and the offender's dangerous history do not defeat that immunity. (Derived from Thompson v. County of Alameda (n.d.).)