although government owes certain duties to public at large does not owe those

Although government owes certain duties to public at

This preview shows page 37 - 40 out of 81 pages.

although government owes certain duties to public at large, does not owe those duties to individual members of public. Thus, no individual has “standing” to sue for damages caused by breach of such duty. NOT an immunity defense , AND negates the duty element of the P’s prima facie case BUT : when police promise to take care & fail, YES duty (SPECIAL relationship) (1) Assumption by government of affirmative duty (2) Knowledge of inaction would lead to harm (3) Direct contact of injured party with government (4) Justifiable reliance on government TEST Berkovitz v. United States : Requirements Determining when Discretionary Function Exception applies : **only decisions “based on considerations of public policy” will apply Conduct at issue must be discretionary, involving “an element of judgment or choice.” Judgment at issue be of the kind that the discretionary function exception was designed to shield. Purpose : prevent judicial second-guessing of gvn’t decisions ***Protect ONLY judgments grounded in social, economic, and political policy . TEST: To determine Special Relationship: AMOL 1. assumption by 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 agents that inaction could lead to harm; 3. some form of direct contact b/w municipality’s agents and the injured party; and 4. that party’s unjustifiable reliance on the municipality’s affirmative undertaking. 37
Image of page 37
38
Image of page 38
Riss v. City of New York (1969) Public Rule Duty; NOT affirmative Defense case YES LIABILITY EXCEPTION Facts: P sued City of New York for failing to protect her from her stalker; Threatened to kill or harm P P repeatedly sought help from NY Police (D) D did nothing to protect. Stalker paid someone to throw lye in P’s face blinded in one eye and perm. Disfigured Holding: NO. Municipality NOT LIABLE. No general duty to protect the public. Police responsibility is limited by its resources. Public Duty Rule. Strauss v. Belle Realty Co . (1985) Treating Con Ed like municipality for Public Duty Rule YES LIABILITY EXCEPTION Facts: D (private company) P (tenant of rent apt). P&D no contract. D power system blacked out, P injured. Holding : D owed NO DUTY to P. Duty in Negligence Case if NOT defined by foreseeability nor private contract . Matter of Public Policy : Because millions of people were affected by Con Ed’s gross negligence, liability in a buildings common area, should be limited to those with a contractual relationship with. ** Winterbottom v. Wright all over again! Dissent: Myth of crushing liability: perhaps we should put burden on ∆ to prove that liability would be in fact crushing. Kircher v. City of Jamestown: YES LIABILITY EXCEPTION 3 rd party told police someone was kidnapped – and police offered to follow up. Normally this would be an affirmative step (which they didn’t do in Riss ).
Image of page 39
Image of page 40

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture