New York Law Review

Tag: Public Duty Doctrine

  • Kircher v. City of Jamestown, 74 N.Y.2d 251 (1989): Public Duty Doctrine and Special Relationship Exception

    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.

  • Riss v. City of New York, 22 N.Y.2d 579 (1968): Municipal Liability for Failure to Provide Police Protection

    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.