Florence v. Goldberg
44 N.Y. 189 (1978)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A municipality may be held liable for negligence when it voluntarily assumes a duty to protect a specific class of persons, that class of persons relies on the performance of that duty, and the municipality's failure to perform the duty places the person in a worse position than if the duty had never been assumed.
Facts:
- Darryle Davis, a 6-and-a-half-year-old first-grade student, was required to cross a busy two-way street, Ralph Avenue, to get to his school in Brooklyn.
- For the first two weeks of the school year, a civilian school crossing guard employed by the New York City Police Department was consistently stationed at the intersection of Park Place and Ralph Avenue.
- Darryle's mother accompanied him to school during this two-week period, observing the daily presence of the crossing guard.
- Relying on the continued presence of the guard for her son's safety, Darryle's mother accepted employment and began allowing him to walk to school alone.
- On November 14, 1967, the regularly assigned crossing guard called in sick, notifying the police precinct.
- Despite departmental regulations requiring the precinct to assign a substitute patrolman or notify the school principal of the absence, the police department did neither.
- While returning home from school that afternoon, Darryle attempted to cross the unguarded intersection and was struck by a taxicab, resulting in severe brain damage.
Procedural Posture:
- The infant's mother, as his guardian, sued the City of New York and the taxicab's owner, Lilly Transportation Corp., in a New York trial court.
- A jury at the trial court returned a verdict finding the City of New York 75% liable and Lilly Transportation Corp. 25% liable.
- On appeal, the Appellate Division, an intermediate appellate court, affirmed the judgment on liability but ordered a new trial solely on the issue of damages.
- Following a retrial on damages, the case was appealed again to the Appellate Division, which modified the mother's damage award and affirmed the judgment.
- The City of New York then appealed the affirmed judgment of liability to the New York Court of Appeals, the state's highest court.
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 an actionable special duty of care when its police department voluntarily assumes the task of supervising school crossings, inducing a parent's reliance on such supervision, thereby making the municipality liable for its negligent failure to provide a guard?
Opinions:
Majority - Jasen, J.
Yes. A municipality that voluntarily assumes a duty to a particular class of persons, such as supervising school crossings, may be held liable for its negligent omission to perform that duty where its assumption of duty was relied upon by members of that class. While a municipality is generally not liable for failing to provide general police protection, a special relationship creating a duty to a specific group can arise. Here, the police department voluntarily assumed a duty to a special class—schoolchildren at designated crossings. The infant plaintiff’s mother relied on the regular performance of this duty, which induced her to allow her child to travel to school alone. The city's failure to perform its assumed duty placed the infant in a more vulnerable position than he would have been in had the duty never been undertaken at all, as his mother would have made other arrangements for his safety. Quoting Chief Judge Cardozo, 'The hand once set to a task may not always be withdrawn with impunity though liability would fail if it had never been applied at all.' The city’s negligence was a question of fact for the jury, which found against the city.
Analysis:
This case solidifies the 'special relationship' exception to the public duty doctrine, which typically grants municipalities immunity from tort liability for the failure to provide general public services like police protection. The decision establishes that liability can attach when a government entity voluntarily assumes a duty to a specific group, inducing reliance that ultimately places individuals in a worse position when the duty is negligently performed. It distinguishes non-justiciable policy decisions about resource allocation from actionable operational negligence in carrying out an assumed duty. This precedent is crucial in litigation against government bodies, requiring plaintiffs to demonstrate not just a failure to act, but the existence of this specific, relied-upon special relationship.
