Court Opinion

ID: 9762361
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 02:21:01.243772+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:33.774677
License: Public Domain

KELLY, Associate Judge,
with whom MACK, Associate Judge, joins, concurring in part and dissenting in part:
The basic premise underlying the dismissals of these complaints is correct: unless a “special duty” to a particular individual can be shown, public officials and governmental units owe only a general, nonactionable duty to members of the public to provide services such as fire and police protection. Chandler v. District of Columbia, D.C.App., 404 A.2d 964 (1979); Duran v. City of Tucson, 20 Ariz.App. 22, 509 P.2d 1059 (1973); Trautman v. City of Stamford, 32 Conn. Supp. 258, 350 A.2d 782 (1975); Trujillo v. City of Albuquerque, 93 N.M. 564, 603 P.2d 303 (App.1979); 18 E. McQuillan, Municipal Corporations §§ 53.04a, b (3d ed. 1977). As stated in 2 T. Colley, Law of Torts:
The rule of official responsibility, then, appears to be this: That if the duty which the official authority imposes upon an officer is a duty to the public, a failure to perform it, or an inadequate or erroneous performance, must be a public, not an individual injury, and must be redressed, if at all, in some form of public prosecution. On the other hand, if the duty is a duty to the individual, then a neglect to perform it, or to perform it properly, is an individual wrong, and may support an individual action for damages. “The failure of a public officer to perform a public duty can constitute an individual wrong only when some person can show that in the public duty was involved also a duty to himself as an individual, and that he has suffered a special and peculiar injury by reason of its nonperformance.” [Id. § 300, at 385-86 (4th ed. 1932); citation and footnotes omitted.]
This general duty/special duty dichotomy is illustrated by our decision in Chandler v. District of Columbia, supra. There, the District of Columbia, for financial reasons, decided to close several randomly chosen fire stations, one of which was near Mrs. Chandler’s home. After a fire broke out in her home and her two children died from smoke inhalation, Mrs. Chandler sued for wrongful death, alleging that her children’s deaths resulted from the District’s negligence in closing the fire station. Recognizing the general rule of municipal nonliability, this court found that the facts of Mrs. Chandler’s case did not give rise to a special duty or “special relationship.” Id. at 966-67. By way of further analysis, fire protection services are meant to benefit the community as a whole, and because Mrs. Chandler’s children were members of the general public, with nothing to single them out as specific individuals to whom a duty was owed, no special duty had arisen. Without the critical element of duty, an action in negligence does not lie.1
*10The same reasoning applies in police protection cases. For example, in Trautman v. City of Stamford, supra, a plaintiff who was struck by a car while standing on a public sidewalk sued the city and two police officers, alleging a negligent failure to stop drag racing on the street adjacent to the sidewalk. In finding that no special duty was owed the plaintiff, the court stated, “the allegations of the instant case nowhere assert any conduct directed specifically by the defendant police officers toward the plaintiff individually. The conduct of the defendant patrolmen is directed .. . toward the general public of which the plaintiff happened to be a part at the time in question.” Id. 32 Conn.Supp. at 259, 350 A.2d at 783. The same rule has been applied in finding no special duty to protect a young man from violence in a city park, Trujillo v. City of Albuquerque, supra; to warn a motel employee of suspicious persons in the motel parking lot, Sapp v. City of Tallahassee, 348 So.2d 363 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1977); to arrest a drunk driver whose car collided with the plaintiff’s decedent’s car, Massengill v. Yuma County, 104 Ariz. 518, 456 P.2d 376 (1969); to protect a young lady from the threats of her estranged boyfriend, Riss v. City of New York, 22 N.Y.2d 579, 293 N.Y.S.2d 897, 240 N.E.2d 860 (1968); and to protect property during a civil disturbance, Westminster Investing Corp. v. G. C. Murphy Co., 140 U.S.App.D.C. 247, 434 F.2d 521 (1970).
The general, nonactionable duty to provide police services may narrow, however, to a special, actionable duty if two factors are present. First, there must be some form of privity between the police department and the victim that sets the victim apart from the general public. See, e.g., City of Tampa v. Davis, 226 So.2d 450, 454 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1969). That is, the victim must become a reasonably foreseeable plaintiff. Second, there must be specific assurances of protection that give rise to justifiable reliance by the victim. See, e.g., Sapp v. City of Tallahassee, supra at 365-66.
In Bloom v. City of New York, 78 Misc.2d 1077, 357 N.Y.S.2d 979 (1974), several store owners sued the city for negligent failure to protect their property during a civil disturbance in 1968. The complaints alleged that city officials gave specific assurances of police protection, but negligently failed to take steps to carry out the promises. The city moved to dismiss the complaint, relying on the general rule of municipal nonliability. The court denied the motion, easily distinguishing the case from those cases in which there is no special duty:
In the case at bar it is alleged that the plaintiffs were ready, willing and able to protect their premises but that they were restrained by the police who assured them that proper police protection would be provided. There is therefore alleged an affirmative series of acts by which the city assumed a special duty .... [Id. at 1078, 357 N.Y.S.2d at 981.]
See also Silverman v. City of Fort Wayne, 171 Ind.App. 415, 357 N.E.2d 285 (Ind.App. 1976) (dismissal of negligence complaint arising from failure to protect property during riot reversed in light of personal promise of protection).2
In Florence v. Goldberg, 44 N.Y.2d 189, 404 N.Y.S.2d 583, 375 N.E.2d 763 (1978), the police department voluntarily assigned a school crossing guard to cover a particularly busy intersection in Brooklyn. For the first two weeks of school, the infant plaintiff’s mother accompanied him to school and saw a guard at the intersection every day. When the mother accepted employment, she sent the child to school by himself, relying on the guard’s presence at the intersection. *11One day, the guard was ill and the police department failed to provide a replacement or to notify school officials that there would be no guard at the crossing. The child was struck by a taxi cab as he tried to cross the street alone; the mother sued the city in negligence. Upholding a jury verdict for the child, the court emphasized two factors distinguishing that case from general duty cases. First, the duty assumed by the police was a limited one; it was directed toward a specific class of individuals rather than toward the public in general. Id. at 196-97, 404 N.Y.S.2d at 587, 375 N.E.2d at 767. Second, the mother had witnessed the provision of services and had relied to her detriment on the guard’s performance. Id. The combination of these two factors led the court to conclude that the general duty to provide police services had become a special duty owed to that child.3
As both the Bloom and Florence courts noted, the concept of special duty is actually no more than an application of the cardinal principal of tort law that, even where no duty to act may exist originally, once one undertakes to act, he has a duty to do so with due care. Florence v. Goldberg, supra at 196, 404 N.Y.S.2d at 587, 375 N.E.2d at 766; Bloom v. City of New York, supra at 1079, 357 N.Y.S.2d at 981. Cf. Security National Bank v. Lish, D.C.App., 311 A.2d 833, 834 (1973) (“[o]ne who assumes to act, even though gratuitously, may thereby become subject to the duty of acting carefully, if he acts at all.”) (quoting Glanzer v. Shepard, 233 N.Y. 236, 239, 135 N.E. 275, 276 (1922)). More precisely, one who begins to perform a service to another, whether gratuitously or not must perform with reasonable care; thus, he subjects himself to liability for any harm suffered because the other reasonably and foreseeably relied upon the actor’s performance. See W. Prosser, The Law of Torts § 56 (4th ed. 1972); 2 F. Harper and F. James, The Law of Torts § 18.6 (1956); 2 Restatement (Second) of Torts § 323 (1965). In the words of Chief Judge Cardozo:
If conduct has gone forward to such a stage that inaction would commonly result, not negatively merely in withholding a benefit, but positively or actively in working an injury, there exists a relation out of which arises a duty to go forward. [Moch Co. v. Rensselaer Water Co., 247 N.Y. 160, 167, 159 N.E. 896, 898 (1928); citation omitted.]
This is not, of course, a theory of strict liability; the actor need only do that which is reasonable under the circumstances. Prosser, supra.
To summarize, there are two prerequisites to a finding of a special duty. First, there must be direct contact or some other form of privity between the victim and the police department so that the victim becomes a reasonably foreseeable plaintiff. Second, there must be specific assurances of police services that create justifiable reliance by the victim. Without both of these elements, the duty to provide police services remains a general, nonactionable duty to the public at large.
II
In reviewing the trial courts’ grants of the motions to dismiss, “we must accept every well-pleaded allegation of material fact ... as true and indulge all reasonable inferences which may arise therefrom.” Early Settlers Insurance Co. v. Schweid, D.C.App., 221 A.2d 920, 922 (1966). The dismissals will be sustained only if it appears “beyond doubt that the plaintiff[s] can prove no set of facts in support of [their claims] which would entitle [them] to relief.” Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 S.Ct. 99, 101-102, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957). See also Owens v. Tiber Island Condominium Association, D.C.App., 373 A.2d 890, 893 (1977).
*12Under this standard of review, I would hold that the complaints of appellants Warren, Taliaferro (No. 79-6), and Nichol (No. 79-394), contain facts that, if proved, are sufficient to establish that the Police Department owed each a special duty. Appellants Warren’s and Taliaferro’s urgent telephone calls to the Metropolitan Police Department removed them from the broad class of the general public. Appellant Nich-ol ’s direct contact with the officer on the scene of the assault made him a reasonably .foreseeable plaintiff. Any duty assumed by the police from those points on was not a duty to the community as a whole, but a specific duty to identifiable persons.
All three of these appellants have also alleged specific assurances of police protection that may have created justifiable reliance on their parts. When a police department employee tells frantic callers that help is on the way, as in No. 79-6, or that he will obtain vital information for an injured person, as in No. 79-394, it is reasonably foreseeable that the persons so assured may forego, to their detriment, other avenues of help. Once the police embarked upon services under circumstances where it was reasonably foreseeable that a citizen might rely on their performance, they assumed a duty to perform with due care.
Appellant Douglas does not fit within the class of persons to whom a special duty was owed. Although she arguably meets the first prerequisite,4 she does not fulfill the second. Because she was unaware of either the telephone calls to the police or the police’s assurances to the other women, she could not have justifiably relied to her detriment on those assurances. Therefore, the dismissal as to her must be affirmed.
I do not ignore appellees’ “floodgates of litigation” argument and have carefully considered the trial judge’s fear that “[t]he creation of a direct, personal accountability between each government employee and every member of the community would effectively bring the business of government to a speedy halt ... and dispatch a new generation of litigants to the courthouse over grievances real and imagined.”5 The duty which I recognize in this opinion will not create such broad liability. Moreover, the argument
assumes that a strict liability standard is to be imposed and that the courts would prove completely unable to apply general principles of tort liability in a reasonable fashion in the context of actions arising from the negligent acts of police . .. personnel. The argument is ... made as if there were no such legal principles as fault, proximate cause or foreseeability, all of which operate to keep liability within reasonable bounds. No one is contending that the police must be at the scene of every potential crime .... They need only act as a reasonable man would under the circumstances. [Riss v. City of New York, supra at 586, 293 N.Y.S.2d at 902, 240 N.E.2d at 863 (Keating, J., dissenting).]
In my judgment, the complaints of appellants Warren, Taliaferro and Nichol contain sufficient facts from which they may prove that a special duty was owed to them; consequently, the trial judges erred in dismissing their complaints for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. To me, also, gratuitous comments about condemning the recognized “failings” of the police in these cases is no substitute for an independent and objective decisional analysis of an important and sensitive issue.

. The Chandler case was also decided on the basis of sovereign immunity; because the decision to close the stations was a discretionary act, the city could not be sued. Id. at 966. See generally Wade v. District of Columbia, D.C. App., 310 A.2d 857 (1973) (en banc).
*10As the Chandler court noted, the questions of sovereign immunity and duty require separate analysis. Chandler, supra at 966. No question of sovereign immunity is raised in these appeals.

. The allegations of specific assurances of protection in Bloom and Silverman distinguish those cases from Westminster Investing Corp. v. G. C. Murphy Co., supra, a case relied on by the trial judge in No. 79-6. The plaintiffs in Westminster were members of the general public, to whom no promises of protection had been made, and to whom the District therefore owed no special duty.

. Appellees attempt to distinguish Florence from the case at bar by arguing that the police in Florence breached a statutory duty to provide crossing guards. It is clear from the opinion, however, that the police department regulations referred to by appellees dealt only with the procedures to be followed if a school guard, once gratuitously assigned, was unable to report for duty. The initial assumption of the duty to provide a crossing guard was completely voluntary. Florence, supra 44 N.Y.2d at 196, 404 N.Y.S.2d at 587, 375 N.E.2d at 767.

. Whether she removed herself from the class of the general public is, as stated, a factual question: from the point of view of the police department, with its knowledge from the telephone call, was appellant Douglas a foreseeable victim or merely still a member of the general public?

. See Appendix infra at 4.