Court Opinion

ID: 9693298
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 16:35:42.151176+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:04:35.819771
License: Public Domain

D. F. Walsh, J.
Plaintiffs, Jose Baudelio Zavala and his wife Maria Zavala, appeal from the circuit court’s entry of summary judgment in favor of defendants Sergeant Andrea Zinser, Officer Freida Y. Harris, and the City of Detroit. GCR 1963, 117.2a).1
This controversy arose out of the shooting of *355plaintiff Jose Zavala outside a Detroit bar in the early morning hours of November 2, 1975. As Mr. Zavala left the bar that morning, he encountered a large group of people in front of the building; some of the people, including Mr. Zavala’s brother, were fighting. After shouting at his brother to stop fighting, Mr. Zavala was shot and seriously injured by one of the participants in the fight. At the time of the incident, defendants Zinser and Harris, City of Detroit police officers, were sitting nearby in their marked police vehicle.
Plaintiffs sued several of the participants in the fight.2 They were later granted permission to amend their complaint to add defendants Zinser, Harris, and the City of Detroit. They alleged that defendants Zinser and Harris had been negligent in failing to stop the fight, in failing to stop Mr. Zavala’s assailant from shooting him, and in generally failing to uphold or enforce the law. They alleged a "special relationship” between Mr. Zavala and defendant police officers giving rise to a duty of due care toward him. Plaintiffs further alleged the vicarious liability of defendant City of Detroit for the negligent conduct of its employees.
Defendants Zinser, Harris, and the City of Detroit moved for summary judgment under GCR 1963, 117.2(1). The court ruled that plaintiffs’ claims against defendant city were barred by governmental immunity, and that any duties owed by defendant police officers in this case had been owed to the public generally and not to Mr. Zavala individually. The motion for summary judgment was, therefore, granted.
On appeal, plaintiffs challenge the court’s determination that defendant police officers did not owe *356a "private” duty to Mr. Zavala. After careful examination of the pleadings and studied consideration of plaintiffs’ arguments, however, we are persuaded that the court’s ruling was correct.
In essence, plaintiffs alleged no more than that defendant police officers had breached their duty to preserve the peace. It is well settled that the duty of a law enforcement officer to preserve the peace is one which is owed to the public generally and not to particular individuals; for breach of that duty an officer is not liable to any particular individual but only to the public. South v Maryland, 59 US (18 How) 396; 15 L Ed 433 (1855); Annala v McLeod, 122 Mont 498; 206 P2d 811 (1949); Commercial Union Ins Co of New York v Wichita, 217 Kan 44; 536 P2d 54 (1975); Trautman v Stamford, 32 Conn Supp 258; 350 A2d 782 (1975); 70 Am Jur 2d, Sheriffs, Police, and Constables, § 54, p 170; Anno: Personal Liability of Policeman, Sheriff, or Similar Peace Officer or His Bond, for Injury Suffered as a Result of Failure to Enforce Law or Arrest Lawbreaker, 41 ALR3d 700. See, generally, 2 Cooley on Torts (4th ed), § 295 et seq.; Massengill v Yuma County, 104 Ariz 518; 456 P2d 376 (1969); Doe v Hendricks, 92 NM 499; 590 P2d 647 (1979); Shore v Stonington, 187 Conn 147; 444 A2d 1379 (1982).
The determination of whether a duty was owed by a defendant to an individual plaintiff is a question of law for the court to decide. Moning v Alfono, 400 Mich 425; 254 NW2d 759 (1977), reh den 401 Mich 951 (1977); Doe v Hendricks, supra. In this case, no facts were pleaded which showed a duty owed to these plaintiffs. Since an essential element of actionable negligence was missing, therefore, the court properly granted summary judgment for defendant police officers.
*357Summary judgment was also properly entered for defendant City of Detroit. The operation of a police department is a governmental function. MCL 691.1407; MSA 3.996(107); Fiser v Ann Arbor, 107 Mich App 367; 309 NW2d 552 (1981), lv gtd on other grounds 412 Mich 915 (1982); Walkowski v Macomb County Sheriff, 64 Mich App 460; 236 NW2d 516 (1975). The trial court also correctly found that there had been no allegation of intentional tortious conduct. Compare, Lockaby v Wayne County, 406 Mich 65; 276 NW2d 1 (1979); McCann v Michigan, 398 Mich 65; 247 NW2d 521 (1976).
Plaintiffs also argue on appeal that the court abused its discretion in denying their request to amend their complaint to allege defendants’ violation of 42 USC 1983. The record does not disclose the findings underlying the court’s discretionary ruling; appellate review is impossible in this case without such findings. See LaBar v Cooper, 376 Mich 401; 137 NW2d 136 (1965); Ben P Fyke & Sons v Gunter Co, 390 Mich 649; 213 NW2d 134 (1973). Accordingly, we remand to the circuit court for supplementation of the record. The court shall make the necessary findings and shall return the supplemented record to this Court within 30 days of the effective date of this opinion.
Affirmed in part and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opnion. We retain jurisdiction.
D. C. Riley, P.J., concurred.

 Although the circuit court’s order states that summary judgment was granted under "GCR 1963, 117.23”, it is clear that the order was entered pursuant to GCR. 1963, 117.2(1).

 The record suggests that, following a jury trial, a judgment was entered in plaintiffs’ favor against defendant Victor Guerra in the amount of $1,209,726.