Kircher v. City of Jamestown, 74 N.Y.2d 251 (1989)
A municipality is not liable for negligence in the performance of a governmental function unless a special relationship exists between the municipality and the injured party, creating a specific duty to protect that individual.
Summary
Plaintiff sought to recover damages for injuries sustained when the car she was in struck a loose horse. She claimed the police negligently performed their duties by failing to locate the horse or take adequate precautions to protect motorists after receiving a report of the animal’s presence near a major road. The New York Court of Appeals held that the plaintiff’s action failed because she could not establish the existence and breach of a “special duty” owed to her by the police. The court reasoned that the police had to make a discretionary decision on how to allocate limited resources and that their actions did not create a special relationship with the plaintiff.
Facts
Police received a report of a loose horse near a major road.
The police decided to search for the horse but were unable to find it with the limited personnel available.
Plaintiff was injured when the car in which she was a passenger struck the loose horse while traveling at high speed.
Plaintiff sued, alleging the police were negligent in carrying out their duties.
Procedural History
The trial court initially entered a verdict in favor of the plaintiff.
The trial court then vacated the verdict and dismissed plaintiff’s action.
The Appellate Division reversed the trial court’s decision.
The New York Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s order and reinstated the trial court’s dismissal.
Issue(s)
Whether the plaintiff can recover against the municipality for negligent performance of a governmental function when no special relationship existed between the plaintiff and the municipality.
Holding
No, because the plaintiff failed to establish the existence and breach of a “special duty” owed to her by the police.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals applied the public duty doctrine, which shields municipalities from liability for negligence in the performance of governmental functions unless a special relationship exists between the municipality and the injured party. A special relationship requires: (1) an assumption by the municipality, through promises or actions, of an affirmative duty to act on behalf of the party who was injured; (2) knowledge on the part of the municipality’s agents that inaction could lead to harm; (3) direct contact between the municipality’s agents and the injured party; and (4) that party’s justifiable reliance on the municipality’s undertaking.
The court found that the plaintiff’s claim was essentially that the police should have allocated their limited resources differently. The court stated, “Faced with a report of a loose horse near a major thoroughfare, the police either had to locate the horse, stop traffic on the road, or take other precautions to protect motorists. With only a few officers immediately available, there was insufficient personnel to pursue more than one course of action.”
The court distinguished this case from cases like De Long v. County of Erie, 60 N.Y.2d 296, where a special relationship was found due to the plaintiff’s direct reliance on specific assurances from the police.