Irwin v. Town of Ware
392 Mass. 745, 467 N.E.2d 1292 (1984)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A municipality may be held liable for injuries to the public proximately caused by its police officers' negligent failure to remove an identifiably intoxicated motorist from the highway, as this failure breaches a special duty of care owed to the motoring public. The statutory cap on liability under the Massachusetts Tort Claims Act, G. L. c. 258, § 2, applies on a per-plaintiff basis.
Facts:
- Around 2 a.m., Officer Power of the Ware police department observed a car driven by Donald Fuller "peel out" with "squealing tires" from near a lounge.
- Officer Power stopped Fuller for driving too fast and, during the stop, smelled alcohol on Fuller's breath. Fuller admitted to having had "a couple of beers."
- A second officer, Philip Aucoin, arrived on the scene.
- While the two officers were talking, an eyewitness observed Fuller swaying, unsteady on his feet, and holding onto the car door to steady himself.
- Officer Power did not conduct any field sobriety tests on Fuller.
- After a brief conversation, Officer Power returned Fuller's license and registration and allowed him to drive away.
- Approximately ten minutes later, Fuller's vehicle, traveling at 65-75 mph, collided head-on with a vehicle carrying the Irwin family.
- The collision resulted in the deaths of Donald Fuller, Mark Irwin, and Misty Jane Irwin, and caused severe injuries to Debbie Irwin and Steven Irwin.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiffs sued the Town of Ware in Superior Court under the Massachusetts Tort Claims Act, G. L. c. 258.
- A jury returned special verdicts in favor of the plaintiffs for a total of $873,697.
- The Town of Ware filed motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) or, alternatively, for a reduction of the jury's award.
- The trial judge denied the Town's JNOV motion.
- The trial judge reported several legal questions, including the denial of the JNOV motion, to the Appeals Court.
- The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts granted the plaintiffs' application for direct appellate review.
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 the public duty rule shield a municipality from liability under the Massachusetts Tort Claims Act for injuries caused by its police officers' negligent failure to remove an identifiably intoxicated driver from the highway?
Opinions:
Majority - Hennessey, C.J.
No, the public duty rule does not shield the municipality from liability because a special relationship exists between a police officer who negligently fails to remove an intoxicated motorist from the highway and a member of the public who suffers injury as a result of that failure. The court reasoned that the officer's decision is not a discretionary function immune from liability, as the legislative policy to remove intoxicated drivers has already been established. A duty of care exists where the risk created by a municipal employee is of immediate and foreseeable physical injury to persons, like the motoring public, who cannot reasonably protect themselves. This creates a special relationship that is an exception to the general public duty rule. The court also held that the $100,000 liability cap under G. L. c. 258, § 2, applies on a per-plaintiff basis, not per incident, to ensure a meaningful remedy for victims as intended by the legislature. However, a new trial was ordered due to the improper admission of blood test evidence which lacked a proper foundation and chain of custody.
Dissenting - Nolan, J.
Yes, the public duty rule should shield the municipality from liability. The dissent argued that the majority's opinion abandons the established public duty rule from Dinsky v. Framingham, which requires a special duty owed to specific plaintiffs. For such a duty to exist, there must be some privity between the police and the victim and specific assurances of protection that create justifiable reliance, neither of which existed here. The plaintiffs were not identifiable victims at the time of the officer's interaction with the driver, so the duty was owed only to the general public. By creating liability to all possible plaintiffs, the court discards the necessary finding of a special relationship and creates a frightening expansion of municipal liability.
Analysis:
This decision significantly narrowed the scope of the public duty rule in Massachusetts, establishing a major exception for cases involving the immediate and foreseeable harm posed by intoxicated drivers. By creating a 'special relationship' between police and the general motoring public in this context, the court expanded the potential for municipal tort liability. This precedent makes it easier for plaintiffs to overcome the defense of governmental immunity in cases where a public employee's negligence creates a clear and present danger to the public. Furthermore, the court's interpretation of the statutory damages cap as 'per-plaintiff' clarified a critical aspect of the Massachusetts Tort Claims Act, ensuring more substantial recoveries are possible when a single negligent act harms multiple victims.
