Galanti v. United States

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit
709 F.2d 706 (1983)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

Under Georgia law, a person generally has no legal duty to warn or protect another from a foreseeable risk of harm caused by a third party. A duty only arises if the person's own affirmative act created the danger, they had the ability to control the third party, or they voluntarily assumed a duty to protect the specific individual.

Facts:

Michael G. Thevis, a convicted felon, escaped from federal custody.
Roger Dean Underhill was a key government witness against Thevis, and FBI Agent Paul V. King knew Thevis had made prior attempts on Underhill's life.
The government offered Underhill witness protection, but he refused to enter the program until he sold a secluded tract of land.
Underhill insisted on personally showing the property to prospective buyers, despite Agent King's warnings about the danger.
Underhill informed Agent King that he would be showing the property the next day to Isaac N. Galanti, who had responded to a newspaper advertisement.
Agent King did not attempt to contact or warn Galanti of the danger, nor did he arrange for surveillance of the property.
Thevis arranged for both Underhill and Galanti to be murdered at the property during their meeting.

Procedural Posture:

Vivian W. Galanti filed a lawsuit against the United States government under the Federal Tort Claims Act in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.
The government filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
The district court (trial court) considered a factual stipulation submitted by the parties and granted the government's motion to dismiss.
Vivian W. Galanti, as appellant, appealed the district court's dismissal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

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 law enforcement agent have a legal duty to warn a third party of foreseeable harm from a dangerous criminal when the agent did not create the danger, did not have the criminal under control, and had not assumed a specific duty to protect that third party?

Opinions:

Majority - Lewis R. Morgan

No. Under Georgia law, a law enforcement agent does not have a legal duty to warn a third party of foreseeable harm from a criminal under these circumstances. The general rule is that there is no duty to warn or protect another from a foreseeable risk of harm simply because of one's knowledge of the danger. The court examined the three exceptions to this rule and found none applied. First, Agent King did not create the danger; he was merely aware of the risk posed by Thevis. Second, the agent did not have the ability to control Thevis, who was an escaped fugitive, distinguishing this from cases where a defendant had control over a dangerous person. Third, while a duty might have been owed to the witness, Underhill, no specific duty was ever voluntarily assumed by the FBI to protect Galanti, a member of the general public. Therefore, because no exception applied, the agent owed no legal duty to Galanti.

Analysis:

This decision strictly adheres to the common law principle that there is no general duty to act to protect others from harm (nonfeasance), even when that harm is foreseeable. It narrowly construes the exceptions that create such a duty, clarifying for law enforcement and government agencies that mere knowledge of a potential threat to a third party is insufficient to establish liability. The case reinforces that a 'special relationship' giving rise to a duty to protect requires a more direct connection, such as creating the peril, having control over the perpetrator, or making a specific undertaking to protect the injured party. This sets a high bar for plaintiffs in similar negligence cases against the government, protecting agencies from broad liability for the criminal acts of third parties.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Galanti v. United States (1983)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"

Premium Feature