Federal Agency Not Liable for Shooting Death of Kate Steinle

Last week, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a ruling in the long-watched case of Steinle v. City & County of San Francisco.

The case has been in the news for several years. It’s a tragic case that has been politically charged because Kate Steinle was killed by an undocumented immigrant. The case has been a rallying cry for activists decrying illegal immigration, but we will avoid talking about these sensitive issues here and discuss only the legal ones.

Here are the facts. John Woychowski is a park ranger for the federal Bureau of Land Management. The Bureau of Land Management is part of the Department of the Interior. On June 27, 2015, Woychowski left his holstered-Sig-Sauer service weapon in a backpack in his car as he parked to go eat at a San Francisco restaurant. When he returned to his car, the windows were broken, and his backpack was gone. He immediately reported the theft to the San Francisco police.

Four days later, on July 1, 2015, Kate Steinle was walking with her dad in the area. Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez was sitting on a park bench, saw a gun wrapped in a rag, and decided to pull the trigger, aiming at the ground. The bullet ricocheted and struck Kate Steinle. She was killed. Lopez-Sanchez was prosecuted but ultimately acquitted.

Kate Steinle’s parents sued the City of San Francisco for wrongful death. That case was previously dismissed. Steinle’s parents also sued the U.S. Government, arguing that it was responsible for the negligence of John Woychowski, who negligently left his service weapon loaded and unsecured in his car.

The case was brought under the Federal Tort Claims Act. We’ve discussed this law before—it is what grants private citizens the right to sue the federal government for negligence in federal court. The federal court then applies the state law of the place where the negligent act occurred; in this case, that was California.

The Court ruled that Woychowski’s conduct was too remote from the subsequent harm that befell Kate Steinle. In tort law, there must be what is called “proximate cause”. This means there must be a direct, foreseeable link between the defendant’s negligent conduct, and the resulting harms to the plaintiff. If there are too many breaks in the chain of events, the law views these breaks as an “intervening cause” that disrupts the chain, shielding the defendant from liability.

Here, Woychowski left his holstered firearm in his backpack in his car. But 1) someone broke into the locked vehicle; 2) someone stole a backpack, probably not knowing there was a pistol inside; 3) someone found the pistol in the backpack; 4) someone removed the pistol, wrapped it in a cloth or rag and abandoned it near a park bench; 5)Lopez-Sanchez picked up the gun four days later and fired it aimlessly; 6) the bullet ricocheted off the ground and fatally struck Kate Steinle.

The Court concluded that there were too many intervening causes between Woychowski’s negligence and the resulting harm—the death of Kate Steinle. Therefore, the Bureau of Land Management was not liable to her parents under the Federal Tort Claims Act. There was no “proximate cause”, which is a required element in every negligence lawsuit in California.

We can all agree that this was a tragic case. Kate Steinle should not have died, and may her memory be a blessing. The federal government’s negligence was too remote to have directly caused her untimely death.

For questions about the Federal Tort Claims Act or your California or Los Angeles negligence lawsuit, the Rabbi Lawyer is ready to assist, 24/6.