NCJ Number
94921
Journal
University of Florida Law Review Volume: 35 Issue: 4 Dated: (Fall 1983) Pages: 720-737
Date Published
1983
Length
18 pages
Annotation
This note discusses the traditional barriers to police liability, with attention to the public duty doctrine, the policy considerations supporting it, and its special relationship exception; analyzes the cases rejecting the doctrine, emphasizing the Arizona Supreme Court decision; and proposes to replace the public duty doctrine with a new standard of policy liability based on gross negligence.
Abstract
By finding that a special relationship exists between the plaintiff and the police, courts avoid the rule that public duties are not owed to a particular individual. The special relationship exception thereby permits recovering the appropriate case, while generally preserving the public duty doctrine. In 1976, the unanimous State acceptance of the public duty doctrine began to erode. The Alaska Supreme Court rejected the doctrine by characterizing it as another form of sovereign immunity. In Ryan v. State, the Arizona Supreme Court extended the abrogation of the public duty doctrine to cases involving allegations of the State's negligent failure to prevent crime. When the complaint alleges negligent police failure to prevent a crime, courts may reject the public duty doctrine as a defense. State courts should follow the lead of the Attorney General's Task Force on Violent Crime and the Federal courts and apply a gross negligence standard to define the scope of police liability. Abolishing the public duty doctrine would provide opportunities for police officers to vindicate their actions and increase public confidence in the awareness of police work. Any standard that replaces the public duty doctrine must consider the high risks inherent in police work and the current trend of crime victims to seek awards from public entities. A total of 136 footnotes are listed.