Warren v. District of Columbia (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981) is a District of Columbia Court of Appeals case that held that the police are not under a specific legal duty to provide police services to individual citizens based on the public duty doctrine.
The court's decision, written by Judge Joseph M. Hannon, plainly stated that "a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen."
Procedural history Carolyn Warren, Miriam Douglas, Joan Taliaferro, and, in a separate case, Wilfred Nichol sued the District of Columbia and individual members of the Metropolitan Police Department for negligent failure to provide adequate police services. The trial judges held that the police were under no specific legal duty to provide protection to the individual plaintiffs and dismissed the complaints. In a 2–1 decision, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals determined that Warren, Taliaferro, and Nichol were owed a special duty of care by the police department and reversed the trial court rulings. In a unanimous decision, the court also held that Douglas failed to fit within the class of persons to whom a special duty was owed and affirmed the trial court's dismissal of her complaint. The case was reheard by an en banc panel of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, and the defendant (District of Columbia) prevailed.
Background Warren, Taliaferro, and Douglas
Nichol On April 30, 1978, at approximately 11:30 pm, appellant Nichol stopped his car for a red light at the intersection of Missouri Avenue and Sixteenth Street, N.W. Unknown occupants in a vehicle directly behind appellant struck his car in the rear several times, and then proceeded to beat appellant about the face and head, breaking his jaw.
A Metropolitan Police Department officer arrived at the scene. In response to the officer's direction, appellant's companion ceased any further efforts to obtain identification information of the assailants. When the officer then failed to get the information, leaving Nichol unable to institute legal action against his assailants, Nichol brought a negligence action against the officer, the Metropolitan Police Department and the District of Columbia.
Decision In a 4–3 decision, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals affirmed the trial courts' dismissal of the complaints against the District of Columbia and individual members of the Metropolitan Police Department based on the public duty doctrine ruling that "the duty to provide public services is owed to the public at large, and, absent a special relationship between the police and an individual, no specific legal duty exists". The Court thus adopted the trial court's determination that no special relationship existed between the police and appellants, and therefore no specific legal duty existed between the police and the appellants.
See also Lozito v. New York City DeShaney v. Winnebago County Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales Duty of care United States tort law Refusing to assist a police officer
References