Riss v. City of New York

New York Court of Appeals · 1968 · Torts

TortsMunicipal liabilityPolice protectionmunicipal liabilitygovernmental functionspolice protectionpublic dutyspecial protection

Facts

The plaintiff repeatedly sought police protection after being threatened with personal harm and later suffered serious personal injuries when such protection was not provided. The majority did not restate the detailed facts, noting that they were described in the dissent. The case concerns an alleged failure by the municipality to furnish special police protection to a member of the public faced with specific threats.

Issue

Whether a municipality may be held liable in tort for failing to provide special police protection to a person who repeatedly requested protection after specific threats and was later injured. More broadly, the question is whether courts should recognize a general tort duty requiring police protection for particular members of the public absent legislative authorization.

Rule

A municipality is not subject to tort liability for failing to provide police protection to members of the public, even where a person seeks protection based on specific hazards, because the provision and allocation of police protection is a governmental function committed to legislative-executive judgment. A different rule may apply where police authorities undertake responsibility to a particular person and, without adequate protection, expose that person to the very risk that later causes loss.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Buffalo, Dana Mercer received repeated text-message threats from a former coworker and reported them to the city police on four occasions. She asked for patrol coverage outside her apartment, but no officer was assigned, and she was later attacked in the parking lot.

If Dana sues the city in tort for negligently failing to provide police protection, what is the strongest argument for the city?

Explanation. The majority rule is that a municipality is not subject to tort liability for failing to provide police protection to members of the public, even when a person seeks protection because of specific hazards. The opinion stresses that police protection is a governmental service aimed at protecting the public generally and that courts should not impose a new tort duty that would effectively control allocation of limited police resources. Specific threats and repeated requests do not alone create liability absent legislation or a special undertaking.