DeLong v. County of Erie
455 N.Y.S.2d 887 (1982)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A municipality that voluntarily assumes a duty to a particular person, such as by accepting a 911 emergency call and assuring assistance, must perform that duty in a non-negligent manner. A special duty is created when there is an assumption of an affirmative duty by the municipality's agents, direct contact with the injured party, and that party's justifiable reliance on the municipality's undertaking.
Facts:
- Amalia DeLong lived in the Village of Kenmore, which was served by a 911 emergency telephone system jointly operated by the County of Erie and the City of Buffalo.
- On the morning of October 25, 1976, DeLong called 911 and reported a burglar trying to break into her home at 319 Victoria.
- The 911 complaint writer responded, 'Okay, right away,' but mistakenly wrote the address as '219 Victoria' on the complaint card.
- The complaint writer failed to obtain the caller's name, verify the municipality (Kenmore), or confirm the full street name was 'Victoria Boulevard,' treating it as a call for Victoria Avenue in Buffalo.
- Buffalo police were dispatched to 219 Victoria Avenue, found no such address existed, and the dispatcher cleared the call at 9:34 AM with no further follow-up.
- The 911 system had the capability for instant, direct contact with the Kenmore Police Department, which was located only 1,375 feet from DeLong's home.
- At approximately 9:42 AM, DeLong was seen running from her house, bleeding profusely from multiple stab wounds.
- DeLong subsequently died from her injuries; a pathologist estimated the fatal blow was inflicted around 9:38 AM, four minutes after the police had cleared the incorrect call.
Procedural Posture:
- Amalia DeLong's administrator sued the County of Erie and the City of Buffalo in a state trial court for conscious pain and suffering and wrongful death.
- A jury returned a verdict finding the defendants 50% responsible each.
- The jury awarded the plaintiff $200,000 for conscious pain and suffering and $600,000 for wrongful death, and a judgment was entered thereon.
- The defendants, the County of Erie and the City of Buffalo, appealed the judgment to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a municipality create a special duty to a specific individual, thereby waiving its governmental immunity, when its 911 emergency system accepts a call for help, assures the caller that assistance is forthcoming, and the caller relies on that assurance to their detriment?
Opinions:
Majority - Hancock, Jr., J. (as to liability); Denman, J. (as to damages)
Yes, a municipality creates a special duty by assuring a 911 caller that help is on the way, and can be held liable for negligently performing that duty. The court reasoned that this case is distinguishable from a mere failure to provide general police protection. A special relationship was formed through the city and county's holding out of the 911 number, Amalia DeLong’s call in reliance on that system, and her further reliance on the operator's explicit assurance, 'Okay, right away.' This voluntary assumption of a duty to act carried with it the obligation to act with reasonable care. The circumstantial evidence strongly suggests that DeLong relied on this assurance to her detriment by remaining in her house instead of fleeing or seeking other help, which established proximate cause for her death. The court also affirmed the damage awards, with Justice Denman's portion of the opinion establishing that expert economic testimony is admissible to prove the pecuniary value of a deceased housewife's services in a wrongful death action, finding the matter is beyond the 'common ken' of a jury.
Dissenting - Hancock, Jr., J. (as to wrongful death damages only)
While concurring on the issue of liability, this opinion dissents regarding the amount of damages for wrongful death. The reasoning is twofold: First, the $600,000 award is excessive when compared to awards in similar wrongful death cases involving housewives and mothers. Second, the trial court erred in permitting expert testimony from an economist to calculate the replacement cost of a housewife's services. Following the precedent of Zaninovich v. American Airlines, such matters are considered 'within the common ken' of the jury and are subject to too many variables for an objective standard to be supplied by an expert.
Analysis:
This decision is a landmark case defining the 'special relationship' or 'special duty' exception to the public duty doctrine, which generally shields municipalities from liability for failing to provide police protection. It establishes that an emergency response system's direct promise of aid to a specific individual, coupled with that individual's reliance, transforms a general public duty into a specific, actionable one. The case is also significant for modernizing tort law in New York by allowing expert economic testimony to quantify the financial loss from a non-wage-earning spouse's death, thereby providing a basis for more substantial and empirically grounded damage awards.
