Frye v. Clark County
97 Nev. 632, 637 P.2d 1215, 1981 Nev. LEXIS 609 (1981)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A government entity's duty to provide public services, such as fire protection, is a duty owed to the public at large and not to any specific individual; therefore, the entity is generally not liable for negligence in the performance of that duty absent the creation of a special duty to a particular person.
Facts:
- The appellant's house caught on fire.
- Neighbors notified the fire department via a jointly maintained emergency telephone number.
- The neighbors provided the correct address for the fire, including the cross streets.
- The fire department was dispatched but initially went to the wrong address on 'El Camino Avenue' instead of the correct 'El Camino Road'.
- As a result of the mistake, the fire department was delayed in arriving at the scene.
- The appellant's house was destroyed by the fire.
Procedural Posture:
- The appellant filed a lawsuit for damages against the respondents in the district court (trial court), alleging negligence.
- Respondents filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing no actionable breach of duty had been alleged.
- The trial court granted the respondents' motion for summary judgment.
- The appellant appealed the trial court's judgment to the Nevada Supreme 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 municipal fire department owe a specific duty of care to an individual homeowner for its negligence in responding to a fire, such that it can be held liable for damages?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
No, a municipal fire department does not owe a specific duty of care to an individual homeowner for its negligence in responding to a fire. The court reasoned that the duty to fight fires, like the duty to provide police protection or prosecute criminals, is a public duty owed to all citizens, not a private duty to an individual. This principle, known as the public duty doctrine, shields government entities from liability for failing to provide such services. The court noted that a special duty, and thus potential liability, could arise in specific circumstances, such as when official conduct creates specific reliance by an individual or when official negligence affirmatively causes harm. However, merely responding to a fire call, as in this case, does not create such a special duty.
Analysis:
This decision formally extends the public duty doctrine in Nevada to cover fire departments, aligning their liability shield with that already provided to police and prosecutors. By doing so, the court reinforces the principle that government entities are not insurers against all harms that their services are designed to prevent. The ruling protects municipalities from potentially widespread litigation and financial liability for operational errors in emergency services, but it preserves a narrow path to liability through the 'special duty' exception, which will be a key point of contention in future cases involving alleged government negligence.
