Court Opinion

ID: 9615914
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 04:41:49.449133+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:08:14.513854
License: Public Domain

Lockett, J.,
concurring: I agree with the majority decision, except where the majority finds that § 324A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts creates a special relationship between Kansas City police officers and a motorist who was later injured in an automobile accident with a drunk driver. Both the officers’ and the City’s liability are subject to the Kansas Tort Claims Act and its exceptions. Restatement (Second) of Torts § 324A is not an exception to the immunity provided governmental entities and law enforcement officers by the Kansas Tort Claims Act.
Before the City can be liable for damages there must be (1) a negligent or wrongful act or omission by one of its employees; and (2) the employee (a) must be acting within the scope of his employment and (b) under circumstances where the governmental entity, if a private person, would be liable under the laws of this state. Hopkins v. State, 237 Kan. 601, 702 P.2d 311 (1985). For the police officers to be individually liable for a negligent or wrongful act, there must be a duty to act. Individual liability of police officers is limited by the “public duty doctrine.” The public duty doctrine provides that neither a governmental entity nor its police officers are liable for torts committed against a person in the absence of a special duty owed to the injured party. A police officer’s duty to enforce the law is owed to the public at large, rather than to any individual, absent some special relationship with or specific duty owed an individual. Robertson v. City of Topeka, 231 Kan. 358, 644 P.2d 458 (1982). •
K.S.A. 65-4027(A) and 65-5203(a) allow a law enforcement officer to take into custody any person who is intoxicated or incapacitated by alcohol or drugs that is a danger to himself or others. The City of Kansas City had adopted General Order 79-44 which required the officers to take into protective custody individuals incapacitated by alcohol or drugs that might injure themselves or others.
Ignoring the fact that the officers had specific statutory au*383thority and a specific duty under the general order to protect third parties from individuals incapacitated by alcohol or drugs, the majority simply states that under Schmeck v. City of Shawnee, 232 Kan. 11, 651 P.2d 585 (1982), which adopted Restate7 ment (Second) of Torts § 324A (1965), a special duty was owed by police officers to James Fudge. For additional authority, the majority cites Ingram v. Howard-Needles-Tammen & Bergendoff 234 Kan. 289, 672 P.2d 1083 (1983), and Cansler v. State, 234 Kan. 554, 675 P.2d 57 (1984).
The majority’s reliance on these cases is misplaced. Notone of the cited cases implies that the failure to enforce a law creates a special duty to a third party, resulting in liability for a governmental entity or individual police officers. In Schmeck, the plaintiff was injured when the motorcycle he was riding was struck by an automobile. The city was not exempt from liability for a street defect under the Kansas Tort Claims Act. The city was held responsible because of a street defect. Kansas City Power and Light (KCPL) had contracted with the city to design its traffic signal system. KCPL was found negligent when it failed to include a traffic signal in its design for the city traffic system. Based on § 324A, it was KCPL that was responsible to the plaintiff, not the city.
In Ingram, the surviving spouse recovered damages for the wrongful death of her husband. The husband was injured and died when the truck he was driving struck a hole in the traffic lane on a bridge and plunged nearly 30 feet to the ground. The plaintiff sued both the Kansas Turnpike Authority (KTA) and the engineers hired by the KTA to inspect the bridges. KTA was found negligent under the statutes that required KTA to provide a safe highway. The engineers were liable to the plaintiff because they had failed to fulfill the implied duties under their employment contract with the KTA. The rationale of Schmeck and § 324A were used to impose liability on the engineers to an injured third party.
In Cansler, several armed prisoners escaped from Lansing Penitentiary in an automobile. The defendant, Leavenworth County, had an agreement with the penitentiary to warn surrounding law enforcement agencies of escapes from the penitentiary. The County failed to warn the plaintiff, a law enforcement officer, of the escape. The officer attempted to stop a *384speeding car. The occupants of the vehicle, the escaped prisoners, abandoned the car. Not knowing that he was after armed escaping prisoners, the officer gave chase on foot. When he attempted to capture the prisoners, he was shot and wounded. The County was found to owe the plaintiff a duty under § 324A to warn the plaintiff of the escape because of its contract with the penitentiary. The Cansler court determined there was a breach of a duty owed to a third party arising from the contract.
The majority has misapplied § 324A in this case. By its decision, the majority has judicially repealed a major portion of the Kansas Tort Claims Act and overruled Robertson.
The Kansas Legislature has taken action to protect users of our highways from drivers that are intoxicated or incapacitated by alcohol or drugs. K.S.A. 65-4027(A) and 65-5203(a) impose authority on law enforcement officers to arrest an intoxicated or incapacitated driver, to protect not only the impaired driver but also others. Here the special authority was created by statute and the duty was created by the general order adopted by the City. It was not a duty imposed under Schmeck.
McFarland, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part: The facts in certain areas need to be stated with more specificity. On the evening of July 29, 1981, defendant Henley, along with his wife and some of her relatives, was drinking in a private club situated at 2847 Roe Lane in Kansas City, Kansas. The only club employee present was the bartender, Janice Heckman. Henley became loud and obnoxious in his behavior. Closing time for the club was 2:00 a.m. Shortly before closing time, Heckman asked Henley to leave. He refused. David Sparks, a club patron who was a personal friend of Heckman’s, tried to assist her in getting Henley to leave. Henley did not leave. Heckman advised Henley that if he would not leave, she would call the police. Still, Henley did not leave. Heckman then called the Kansas City, Kansas, police department reporting a disturbance in the club. The call was made at approximately 1:45 a.m. Henley and his party then moved to the parking lot. Sparks and Henley continued to argue in the parking lot. No customers remained in the club and Heckman watched from outside the front door. The parking lot was dark except for a dim light from a billboard. Only two or three cars and a few persons were present in the parking lot.
*385Officer Gorham was first on the scene. He arrived at 1:48 a.m. (approximately three minutes after the call was received). David Sparks walked over to the police car and talked with Officer Gorham. The two were old acquaintances. The police dispatch had reported a disturbance at the club. There was no one in the club at this time. Sparks told Gorham the disturbance was over as the party causing the disturbance had left the club. About this time (1:50 a.m.), a second police car arrived — driven by Officer Conchóla. This officer saw Sparks and Gorham talking and pulled in close. Gorham advised Conchóla the trouble (disturbance) was over. This was wholly consistent with the scene viewed by both officers. Neither saw any disturbance at any time. Only a few cars and a handful of patrons remained in the parking lot. Gorham told the few remaining patrons to leave. There is no evidence either officer had a personal two-way conversation with Henley. Gorham simply addressed a general go-on-your-way instruction to the little group of patrons standing by the patrons’ parked cars. Another police car arrived and departed after being told and seeing that the trouble was over. All police cars were gone from the scene within approximately seven minutes after the first had arrived.
Heckman finished closing up the club and came out to go home shortly after closing time. No police cars remained on the scene. Heckman then saw Henley drive out of the parking lot and nearly strike a police car proceeding in the opposite direction on Roe Lane. Heckman stated the vehicle was not one of the police cars that had responded to the disturbance call. She testified it was a black and white vehicle and she did not know whether it was a Kansas City, Kansas, police vehicle. There was evidence that a number of police departments in Johnson County had, in July of 1981, black and white, or dark blue and white, or dark green and white, police vehicles (any of which could appear black and white at night), and that they often proceeded down Roe Lane returning to their own areas.
The tragic accident that cost James Fudge his life occurred on Roe Lane approximately a block and a half from the club. It was so close to the club that Heckman heard the collision from the parking lot and was the first person on the scene. There was no evidence the officer driving the unidentified police vehicle could have turned around and stopped the Henley vehicle prior to the Fudge collision even if he or she had tried to do so.
*386Under the instructions given herein, the jury could find liability on behalf of defendant City on the basis of the acts of Gorham or Conchóla or any other Kansas City, Kansas, police officers (presumably referring to the driver of the unidentified police car which may or may not have been defendant City’s vehicle).
Disregarding the question of immunity for the time being, we must first consider the threshold question of whether or not defendant City (and its officers) committed a tort. Under the evidence most favorable to plaintiff, Gorham was close enough to Henley in the parking lot to see he was intoxicated. Assuming the officer should have seen and correctly evaluated Henley’s intoxicated condition, did the officer breach some duty owed to James Fudge by not administering full sobriety tests to Henley and, assuming Henley failed same, taking Henley into custody? Did the officer breach some duty to Fudge in not entering the club and talking to Heckman?
In Robertson v. City of Topeka, 231 Kan. 358, Syl. ¶ 1, 644 P.2d 458 (1982), a property owner, Robertson, called the police for assistance in removing an intoxicated trespasser from his property. Robertson told the officers who arrived on the scene that he was afraid the trespasser would burn down the house if not removed immediately. The officers would not remove the trespasser and asked Robertson to leave. Fifteen minutes later the intoxicated trespasser set fire to the house. Robertson sued the officers and the city for damages. In affirming the district court’s dismissal of the case, this court held there was no liability as a matter of law on two grounds:
1. The duty of a law enforcement officer to preserve the peace is a duty owed to the public at large, not to a particular individual. Absent some special relationship with or specific duty owed an individual, liability will not lie for damages; and
2. Immunity under the discretionary function or duty exception (K.S.A. 75-6104[d]) contained in the Kansas Tort Claims Act (K.S.A. 75-6101 et seq.).
Thus the court found there was no duty owed Robertson under the circumstances and there could, accordingly, be no breach thereof. That is, there was no tort as a matter of law. Secondly, even if there had been a tort, defendants were immune under *387K.S.A. 75-6104(d). In Robertson, the officers were in direct contact with the person injured prior to the injury and directed him to leave. Still there was no special relationship such as to create liability. In the case before us, no officers were in contact with Fudge — he was purely and simply a member of the public at large. This is a much weaker factual situation than that present in Robertson.
The majority attempts to create a special relationship through the fact Henley was an intoxicated person. This is fallacious. Police officers have a duty to arrest lawbreakers. Crimes and offenses are set forth in statutes. It is not necessary to grant officers specific authority to arrest in each statute defining a crime or offense. Instead, the authority to arrest is set forth in one statute applicable to all crimes. That statute is K.S.A. 1985 Supp. 22-2401, which provides:
“A law enforcement officer may arrest a person under any of the following circumstances:
(a) The officer has a warrant commanding that the person be arrested.
(b) The officer has probable cause to believe that a warrant for the person’s arrest has been issued in this state or in another jurisdiction for a felony committed therein.
(c) The officer has probable cause to believe that the person is committing or has committed:
(1) A felony; or
(2) a misdemeanor, and the law enforcement officer has probable cause to believe that:
(A) The person will not be apprehended or evidence of the crime will be irretrievably lost unless the person is immediately arrested;
(B) the person may cause injury to self or others or damage to property unless immediately arrested; or
(C) the person has intentionally inflicted bodily harm to another person.
(d) Any crime, except a traffic infraction, has been or is being committed by the person in the officer’s view.”
If an officer sees a person acting very suspiciously in a residential area at night, he would have authority to arrest the person. He would have a duty to investigate the suspicious conduct. However, if he fails to investigate and a home in the area is subsequently burglarized, the owner thereof has no cause of action against the officer and his employer as there is no special duty owed the homeowner. The duty owed was to the public at large. A special duty could arise if an officer tells a homeowner he believes that the home will be burglarized that night, but that the homeowner should take no defensive action as *388police will be continually watching the house and will make sure that no damage or loss occurs. If, under such circumstances, the police fail to watch the home, and the homeowner acts in reliance on the earlier statements to his detriment, breach of a special duty owed the homeowner could well be found.
The majority holds failure to take an intoxicated person (as opposed to a criminal) into custody creates some special relationship between the officer and every member of the public. There is simply no legal basis for this conclusion.
In earlier days, police were permitted to take a rather paternalistic view of what were commonly known as drunks and “crazies.” Through general statutes making criminal offenses of loitering, vagrancy, disturbance of the peace, and disorderly conduct, intoxicated and insane persons could be arrested, transported or detained with little formality. In recent years, however, the strong trend has been to eliminate this loose procedure. Police can no longer arrest a drunken or insane person who is committing no crime or is causing no trouble or who is not likely to cause trouble. The drunken or insane person sitting quietly on a park bench in the spring sunshine cannot be hassled by the police, however disreputable or disagreeable his or her appearance may be. Generally, intoxicated persons, drug addicts, insane persons and mentally deficient individuals have the right to go their own way undisturbed as long as they do not violate a law. Should treatment be necessary for their own safety, or the safety of others, formal commitment proceedings are available. The rights of the individuals with such afflictions are safeguarded. There are, however, situations where time-consuming commitment proceedings are not feasible. Something needs to be done immediately. In these emergency situations, officers are empowered to act.
K.S.A. 59-2908(a) provides:
“(a) Any peace officer who has reasonable belief upon observation, that any person is a mentally ill person and because of such person s illness is likely to do physical injury to himself or herself or others ifalloioed to remain at liberty may take such person into custody without a warrant. Said officer shall transport such person to any treatment facility where such person shall be examined by a physician on duty at such facility. If no physician is on duty at the time such person is transported to the facility, such examination shall be made within a reasonable time not to exceed seventeen (17) hours. If a written statement is made by such physician at the treatment facility that after preliminary examination such physician believes such person to be a mentally ill person and because *389of such person’s illness is likely to do physical injury to himself or herself or others if allowed to remain at liberty, and if such treatment facility is willing to admit such person the peace officer shall present to such treatment facility the application provided for in subsection (b) of K.S.A. 59-2909. If the physician on duty at the treatment facility does not believe such person to be a mentally ill person, the peace officer shall release such person.” (Emphasis supplied.)
K.S.A. 65-5203(a) provides:
“(a) Any law enforcement officer who has reasonable belief, upon observation, that any person is intoxicated or incapacitated by drugs and because of this condition is likely to be injured or to injure others if allowed to remain at liberty may take such person into custody without a warrant. The officer shall transport the person to any treatment facility where such person shall be examined by a physician or psychologist at the facility. If no physician or psychologist is available at the time the person is transported to the facility, such examination shall be made within a reasonable time not to exceed 17 hours. If a written statement is made by such physician or psychologist at the treatment facility that after preliminary examination the physician or psychologist believes the person to be intoxicated or incapacitated by drugs and because of this is likely to do physical injury to self or others if allowed to remain at liberty, and if such treatment facility is willing to admit such person, the law enforcement officer shall present to the treatment facility the application provided for in K.S.A. 65-5204. If the physician or psychologist does not believe the person is intoxicated or incapacitated by drugs, the law enforcement officer shall release the person.” (Emphasis supplied.)
K.S.A. 65-4027(A) provides:
“(A) Any law enforcement officer who has reasonable belief, upon observation, that any individual is intoxicated or incapacitated by alcohol and because of this condition is likely to be physically injured or to physically injure others if allowed to remain at liberty may take such individual into custody without a warrant. The officer shall transport such individual to any treatment facility, or other facility for care or treatment, which has a physician or psychologist on staff where such individual shall be examined by a physician or psychologist at such facility. If no physician or psychologist is available at the time such individual is transported to the facility, such examination shall be made within a reasonable time not to exceed 17 hours. If a written statement is made by such physician or psychologist at the treatment facility that after preliminary examination such physician or psychologist believes such individual to be intoxicated or incapacitated by alcohol and because of this is likely to be physically injured or to physically injure others if allowed to remain at liberty, and if such treatment facility is willing to admit such individual the law enforcement officer shall present to such treatment facility the application provided for in subsection (B) of K.S.A. 65-4028 and amendments thereto. If the physician or psychologist does not believe such individual to be intoxicated or incapacitated by alcohol, the law enforcement officer shall release such individual.” (Emphasis supplied.)
Thus, on the authority of these three statutes, police, in an emergency situation, may detain an insane person or person *390intoxicated or incapacitated by drugs or alcohol and take such person to an appropriate treatment facility where a medical evaluation of his condition can be made. Such legislation is necessary. An insane, alcohol intoxicated, or drug addicted individual lying late at night in the snow in bitter weather can be taken for treatment without the filing of a formal commitment procedure the next day. Failure to take an insane, alcohol intoxicated or drug addicted person into custody does not create a special duty to every member of the public. To hold otherwise makes the officer (and his employing governmental unit) the insurer of the public against later harm caused by the individual.
The clear intent of the Act for Obtaining Treatment for a Mentally 111 Person (K.S.A. 59-2901 et seq.); the Act for Treatment of Drug Abusers (K.S.A. 65-5201 et seq.); and the Alcoholism and Intoxication Treatment Act (K.S.A. 65-4001 et seq.) is to provide treatment for such afflicted persons with numerous safeguards to the rights of the patients. Formal proceedings are the rule. The formalities are permitted to be dispensed with only in a limited manner in an emergency situation and then a medical judgment has to be made very shortly after the emergency detention. I believe the majority opinion will have, as one effect, an expansion of the limited emergency detention provision of these acts. If police officers are to be the insurers of the public for acts done by alcohol intoxicated persons, insane persons and drug addicts, then they will, of necessity, detain any individual who might possibly be a danger to himself or others. An officer failing to arrest an individual who has committed a crime or who gives probable cause to believe criminal conduct is imminent is not the insurer of the public against future harm caused by such person. Therefore, noncriminal persons who may be insane or intoxicated by drugs or alcohol will be subject to a far greater risk of detention by the police than those involved in possible criminal conduct. This is contrary to the modern concept of rights of the individual. A good example of the type of situation where the change could occur is present in the facts before us. An officer (not one of the named defendants) heard the disturbance call dispatch in question before us. On his way to respond he saw some individuals walking down the street near the scene. Thinking they were from the club (which they were), he stopped near them and asked some questions. He testified all *391had been drinking but he did not think they were in such a bad way that they should be placed in protective custody for intoxication. Let us suppose one of them had later walked in front of a car — causing injuries to himself and occupants of the car. Under the majority opinion, the officer is the insurer of these individuals and responsible for any harm caused by them. The officer under the new rules enunciated in the majority opinion might well act differently when the same situation arises in the future. Officers may, in responding to dispatch calls, spend more time checking bystanders for drug or alcohol intoxication or insanity than finding the culprit or treating the injured victim. ■
The majority opinion relies heavily on the Kansas City Police General Order No. 79-44 which provides:
“An individual, male or female, who is incapacitated by alcohol or drugs, and because of such condition, is likely to do physical injury to himself or herself or others if allowed to remain at liberty will be taken into protective custody and processed in the following manner . . . .”
This order implements K.S.A. 65-5203(a) and K.S.A. 65-4027(A) relative to emergency detention of persons intoxicated or incapacitated by drugs or alcohol. It uses the words “will be taken” rather than “may take” as found in the statutes, but cannot expand the statutory authority to detain. The order creates no new duty to the public at large, of which James Fudge was a member. Any violation thereof is not a lawful basis of liability for the death of James Fudge. Violation of a general order makes the officer subject to departmental discipline.
Inasmuch as the majority concludes the officers did breach some special duty to James Fudge, and that, accordingly, the officers committed a tort against James Fudge, it is necessary to discuss the Kansas Tort Claims Act (K.S.A. 75-6101 et seq.). I agree with the majority that immunity herein is not afforded through the exceptions from liability contained in K.S.A. 75-6104(c) (enforcement or failure to enforce a law) or K.S.A. 75-6104(m) (failure to provide police protection).
I do not agree with the majority that K.S.A. 75-6104(d) (discretionary function or duty) is inapplicable. K.S.A. 75-6104 provides in part:
“A governmental entity or an employee acting within the scope of the employee’s employment shall not be liable for damages resulting from:
(d) any claim based upon the exercise or performance or the failure to exercise *392or perform a discretionary function or duty on the part of a governmental entity or employee, whether or not the discretion be abused;”
Liability herein is based on the defendant officers’ conduct in failing to detain and place Henley in protective custody. The majority likens the situation herein to that in Jackson v. City of Kansas City, 235 Kan. 278, 680 P.2d 877 (1984). In Jackson two fire trucks collided. One was being operated in an unsafe manner in excess of the Kansas City Fire Department’s regulation relative to maximum speed at which fire trucks were to be driven. In rejecting the claim of immunity under the discretionary function exception (K.S.A. 75-6104[d]), the court, in an opinion authored by myself, stated:
“[I]t would be difficult to visualize a situation where just the actual physical operation of a motor vehicle upon the highway would be a ‘discretionary function or duty’ within the meaning of section (d).” 235 Kan. at 288.
Physical operation of a motor vehicle is clearly not a discretionary function. Neither is the engineering decision of where to place traffic signs utilizing a standard manual a discretionary function (see Carpenter v. Johnson, 231 Kan. 783, 649 P.2d 400 [1982]). In order to have authority to detain Henley, the officers herein had to have a reasonable belief, “upon observation,” that Henley was “intoxicated or incapacitated by alcohol and because of this condition is likely to be physically injured or to physically injure others if allowed to remain at liberty.” This is a probable cause standard. Failure of an officer to believe he or she has probable cause for an arrest of a criminal suspect or detention of an alcohol or drug intoxicated person or a mentally ill person is as discretionary as an act can get. In a given set of circumstances, one officer might believe he or she had probable cause to arrest or detain; another officer under like circumstances might not. In a given set of circumstances, one officer might warn a speeding motorist while another would issue a citation.
In the case before us, the officers were dispatched on a call reporting a disturbance inside a private club. When the first officer arrived he was told by an acquaintance the disturbance was over and the instigator had left. It was undisputed there was then no disturbance inside the club. When the officer arrived there was no disturbance in the parking lot. The- trouble the police had been called to quell no longer existed. It was the closing time of the club. The trouble was over. The police *393dispersed. Under these circumstances, the majority grants no discretion to the officers responding to the call. Liability is imposed for failure to check out all persons in the parking lot. Suppose 25 people had been standing quietly in the parking lot when the officers arrived. At approximately 2:00 a.m. in a bar parking lot, it is safe to assume a sizeable percentage of patrons would show at least some indicia of intoxication. Does an officer have a ministerial duty to check each person and administer field sobriety tests to all who do not speak clearly or seem a little unsteady on their feet and then decide just who does or does not meet the statutory criteria?
Unlike a speeding motorist, the officer does not get a digital read-out on the ultimate question. He or she must rely on his or her own judgment and experience. Clearly, the officers’ failure to place Henley in protective custody was a matter of discretion.
I would reverse the judgment against the defendant police officers and the City of Kansas City.
Schroeder, C.J., joins the foregoing concurring and dissenting opinion.