Riss v. City of New York, 22 N.Y.2d 579 (1968)
A municipality is not liable for failure to provide specific police protection to an individual member of the public, even when that individual has made repeated requests for protection and faces a foreseeable risk of harm, unless the municipality has assumed a special duty to that individual.
Summary
Riss sued New York City for failing to provide her with police protection after she repeatedly requested it due to threats from a rejected suitor. The New York Court of Appeals held that a municipality is not liable for failing to provide police protection to a specific individual, even with knowledge of potential harm, because allocating police resources is a governmental function best left to the legislative and executive branches. Imposing a general duty of protection would overwhelm police resources and force courts to make resource allocation decisions, a task for which they are ill-suited. The Court distinguished cases where the police assume a specific duty to an individual, creating a special relationship.
Facts
Linda Riss was threatened by a rejected suitor, Burton Pugach, who stated that if he couldn’t have her, no one else would, and that he would have her killed. Riss repeatedly sought police protection and informed them of Pugach’s threats. The police were aware of Pugach’s threats but did not provide Riss with specific protection. Pugach later hired someone to throw lye in Riss’s face, causing severe and permanent injuries, including blindness.
Procedural History
Riss sued the City of New York for failing to provide her with police protection. The trial court initially dismissed the complaint. The Appellate Division reversed the trial court’s decision, but a divided Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal after both sides presented their cases but before the case went to the jury. Riss then appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
Whether a municipality is liable in tort for failing to provide specific police protection to a member of the public who has repeatedly requested such protection and is foreseeably threatened with physical harm.
Holding
No, because imposing a general duty of police protection on municipalities would require courts to make resource allocation decisions better suited to the legislative and executive branches, and could overwhelm police resources without predictable limits.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court reasoned that the provision of police protection is a governmental service to protect the public generally. The amount of protection that may be provided is limited by the resources of the community and by legislative-executive decisions about how those resources should be deployed. The court stated, “For the courts to proclaim a new and general duty of protection in the law of tort, even to those who may be the particular seekers of protection based on specific hazards, could and would inevitably determine how the limited police resources of the community should be allocated and without predictable limits.” The Court emphasized that allocating resources for public safety is a legislative and executive function, not a judicial one. The Court distinguished this situation from cases where a municipality undertakes a specific duty to protect an individual, thereby creating a special relationship, as in Schuster v. City of New York, 5 N.Y.2d 75. The Court also highlighted the potential consequences of imposing liability, given the increased crime rates and the repetitive nature of criminal activity in certain areas. To impose liability based on a showing of probable need and a request for protection would be “foolhardy indeed and an assumption of judicial wisdom and power not possessed by the courts.” The Court also noted that compensation for crime victims is a matter for the legislature, which had carefully studied and narrowly defined such compensation through specific statutes.