Opinion ID: 1839936
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Special-Relationship Exception

Text: The special-relationship exception to the public-duty doctrine exposes a government employee to liability for the employee's actions whenever a court finds that the government employee has a special-relationship with the plaintiff. Sawicki, 37 Ohio St.3d at 230, 525 N.E.2d 468. Whether or not the employee has a special-relationship with the plaintiff is determined by the specific test applicable in that state. A survey of special-relationship tests reveals deep disagreement among the states regarding the exact nature of the special-relationship the plaintiff must prove. [5] The only special-relationship test adopted in more than one state is the test adopted by the New York Court of Appeals in Cuffy, supra at 260, 513 N.Y.S.2d 372, 505 N.E.2d 937. The Cuffy test has also been adopted in Ohio and, with modification, [6] in Georgia. Sawicki, 37 Ohio St.3d at 232, 525 N.E.2d 468; City of Rome v. Jordan, 263 Ga. 26, 29, 426 S.E.2d 861 (1993). The elements of the Cuffy test are: (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 agent that inaction could lead to harm; (3) some form of direct contact between the municipality's agents and the injured party; and (4) that party's justifiable reliance on the municipality's affirmative undertaking.... [ Cuffy, 69 N.Y.2d at 260, 513 N.Y.S.2d 372, 505 N.E.2d 937.] We recognize that this test is somewhat arbitrarily restrictive. On first glance the test reads more like a test for promissory estoppel under contract law than a test for a special relationship in tort. However, we also recognize that police officers are employed to work in a milieu of criminal activity where every decision is fraught with uncertainty. Ezell, 902 S.W.2d at 398. Because of the unusual and extraordinary nature of police work it is unfair to allow a jury of laymen with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight to second-guess the exercise of a policeman's discretionary professional duty. Shore v. Stonington, 187 Conn. 147, 157, 444 A.2d 1379 (1982). The test articulated in Cuffy responds to these concerns by insulating police officers from liability arising from their tortious on the job conduct in almost all instances where a plaintiff alleges a failure to provide police protection. Yet, the test also provides plaintiffs some relief in the particularly egregious case of an officer promising police protection, but negligently carrying out that promise. Although this test may deny recovery to some deserving plaintiffs, we prefer to be cautious when exposing police officers to on the job liability. Police officers must work in unusual circumstances. They deserve unusual protection. Therefore, at least when applied to police officers, we would adopt the Cuffy special-relationship test.