Balsam v. New York City, 87 N.Y.2d 283 (1995)
A municipality is generally immune from tort liability for actions undertaken in a governmental capacity, such as traffic regulation by the police, unless a special relationship exists between the injured party and the municipality.
Summary
Rachel Balsam sued New York City for negligence after being injured when a third car hit a van, pinning her between the van and her car after she had stopped to survey damage from an earlier collision caused by ice on the road. She argued the city was negligent in failing to address the hazardous road condition. The Appellate Division reversed a jury verdict in her favor, finding the police response was a governmental function protected by tort immunity. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that traffic regulation is a governmental function and the city was immune from liability because no special relationship existed.
Facts
Rachel Balsam’s car was struck by a van that skidded on ice. While she was standing behind her car assessing the damage, a third car, also affected by the ice, rammed into the van. This collision pinned Balsam between the van and her own car, causing her injuries. Balsam sued New York City, alleging negligence in failing to protect her from the hazardous icy condition on the roadway.
Procedural History
The trial court entered judgment on a jury verdict in favor of Balsam. The Appellate Division reversed the trial court’s judgment, concluding that the police department’s actions in responding to the ice hazard constituted a governmental function and were thus immune from tort liability. Balsam appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
Whether the actions of the New York City police department in responding to an icy road condition, specifically the failure to close the roadway, redirect traffic, or place warning signs, constitute a governmental function for which the city is immune from tort liability, absent a special relationship with the injured party?
Holding
No, because traffic regulation is a classic example of a governmental function undertaken for the protection and safety of the public pursuant to general police powers, and no special relationship existed between the city and Balsam.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s decision. The court acknowledged the general rule that municipalities are immune from liability for negligent performance of governmental functions unless a special relationship exists, which Balsam did not claim. The court distinguished between governmental functions, which confer tort immunity, and proprietary functions, which subject the municipality to ordinary tort liability. The court emphasized that the characterization of an act as proprietary or governmental depends on the specific act or omission and the capacity in which it occurred. Here, the negligence claim was based on the police officers’ failure to close the roadway, redirect traffic, or place warning signals. The court stated, “Like crime prevention, trafile regulation is a classic example of a governmental function undertaken for the protection and safety of the public pursuant to the general police powers”. The court reasoned that tort suits that challenge police actions related to public safety are disfavored because they involve resource allocation decisions best left to policymakers. Allowing the suit would allow a jury to second-guess the police response. The court concluded that the police officers’ actions did not provide a proper basis for tort liability against the city.