Riss v. New York

New York Court of Appeals · 1968 · Torts

22 N.Y.2d 579 (1968)

Updated July 23, 2026

Tortsmunicipal liabilitypolice protectionpublic dutygovernmental servicessovereign immunityspecial undertakingresource allocation

Facts

The plaintiff repeatedly sought police protection after being threatened with personal harm by a private wrongdoer. She eventually suffered severe personal injuries when that protection was not provided. The claim sought to impose municipal tort liability for failure to furnish special police protection to her as an individual member of the public. The majority did not repeat the detailed facts, stating they were fully described in the dissent.

Issue

Whether a municipality may be held liable in tort for failing to provide special police protection to an individual member of the public who repeatedly requested help and faced specific threats of criminal harm. More broadly, the question was whether courts should recognize, absent legislation, a general duty of police protection enforceable in tort.

Rule

Absent legislation, courts will not impose tort liability on a municipality for failure to provide police protection to members of the public, even where a particular person sought protection based on specific hazards. A different result may apply where police authorities have undertaken responsibilities to a particular person and, without adequate protection, exposed that person to the very risk that materialized.

🔒

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 Cleveland, Maya Torres reported to city police that her former roommate had threatened to burn her car and attack her outside work. She called six times over two weeks asking for an officer to watch the parking lot at closing time, but no officer was assigned, and the roommate assaulted her there.

If Maya sues the city in tort for failing to provide protection, which result is most consistent with the governing rule?

Explanation. The majority rule is that, absent legislation, courts will not impose tort liability on a municipality for failure to provide police protection to members of the public, even where a particular person sought protection because of specific hazards. The opinion stresses that police protection is a governmental service for the public generally and that courts should not allocate limited police resources through tort law.