Does Section 845.8 of the California Public Safety Act grant immunity from liability for injuries sustained by a police officer in an incident involving an escaped prisoner?

Section 845.8 states: "Neither a public entity nor a public employee is liable for: [p] ... [p] (b) Any injury caused by: [p] (1) An escaping or escaped prisoner; [p] (2) An escaping or escaped arrested person; or [p] (3) A person resisting arrest." ³ The statute provides "an 'absolute' immunity--one which applies to ministerial as well as discretionary acts." (Kisbey v. State of California, supra, 36 Cal.3d 415, 419, 204 Cal.Rptr. 428, 682 P.2d 1093.) We held in Kisbey that the term "arrest" includes detentions as well, and we recognized that the statute was intended "to immunize public entities and employees from the entire spectrum of potential injuries caused by persons actually or about to be deprived of their freedom who take physical measures of one kind or another [12 Cal.4th 920] to avoid the constraint or to escape from it. It would plainly violate the legislative intent if particular words of the statute--such as "arrest" or "resisting"--were given such technical meanings that a case fell between the cracks of the immunity because, for example, the police had not intended a full arrest--as distinguished from a temporary detention--when the subject fled, or because at the time of the escape the process had not reached the point of physical control over the suspect." (Ibid.)

Page 313