NY Court of Appeals will not modify the "special duty" rule in municipal tort claims

A harsh reality for law students is learning that the police do not have a duty to protect you from harm by a third-party. There are exceptions to this rule, but the cases they use to teach this principle are always difficult and even heartbreaking. One exception is the "special duty" rule, which says under some circumstances the police have to protect you, but that exception is difficult to prove, and most cases asserting the special duty principle fail. This is one such difficult case.

The case is Maldovan v County of Erie, issued by the New York Court of Appeals on November 22. The facts are horrendous. The victim, Laura, was a young woman with developmental disabilities. CPS investigated an allegation that she was being abused, ultimately closing the file and determining the complaint was unfounded. A subsequent abuse complaint was investigated by Adult Protective Services, which closed out the case upon finding the allegations were unfounded. Later on, members of Laura's family tortured and murdered her. Are the county protective agencies liable for Laura's murder? The theory is that the agencies were in a position to help Laura and prevent her murder.

The county is only liable if there was a "special relationship" between Laura and the county such that the county had to protect her. You can prove such a relationship if the governmental agency, in part, caused the victim to rely on its assurances that it would protect her. Laura's estate loses the case because the county did not induce any justifiable reliance in the way it responded to Laura's complaints. The relevant factors in cases like this are found in Cuffy v. City of New York, 69 N.Y.2d 255 (1987)

The estate argued that victims like Laura, who are adults (or children) of diminished capacity, should not be required to prove justifiable reliance under Cuffy. The Court of Appeals, in a divided vote, declines to modify the special relationship test in this particular case, where the victim had a competent adult looking out for her interests. In this case, that person was Richard, the victim's brother, who called CPS and APS on Laura's behalf. As the record does not show that Richard relaxed his vigilance as a consequence of any assurances by county CPS and APS workers, there was no special relationship, and this tragic lawsuit cannot proceed. 

A long (and solitary) dissent by Judge Wilson notes that developmentally-disabled adults are often abused by family members and others, and that when these disabled adults are released from institutions, CPS and APS are obligated to ensure their safety. This case, Judge Wilson says, "immunizes the very agencies bound by law to protect vulnerable adults, when the legislature has clearly stated those agencies do not enjoy immunity from grotesque agency failures such as those turning a blind eye to Laura's horror."