Jackson v. City of Joliet
715 F.2d 1200, 1983 U.S. App. LEXIS 24594 (1983)
Rule of Law:
The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment confers negative liberties that protect individuals from state oppression, but does not confer affirmative rights to governmental services or competent rescue; therefore, negligent failure by state officials to provide aid does not constitute a violation of federal civil rights.
Facts:
- Jerry Ross and Sandra Jackson were driving in Joliet, Illinois, when their car swerved off the road, crashed, and burst into flames.
- Police Officer Taylor arrived two minutes later but made no attempt to check if the car was occupied and did not immediately call an ambulance.
- Officer Taylor directed traffic away from the scene, potentially preventing other motorists from attempting a rescue.
- Firemen arrived eight minutes later and extinguished the fire before noticing the victims slumped in the front seat.
- The firemen and paramedics delayed removing the occupants; they presumed Ross was dead and left him in the car while taking Jackson to the hospital.
- A county coroner's rule prevented non-supervisory personnel from touching Ross to check his vitals, delaying a determination of whether he was alive.
- Sandra Jackson died at the hospital, and Ross was eventually pronounced dead at the scene.
- The conduct of the police and fire officials was alleged to be negligent or grossly negligent, but not intentional or malicious.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit in federal district court alleging violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
- Defendants (police, firemen, city officials) filed motions to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim.
- The district court denied the defendants' motions to dismiss.
- Defendants filed an interlocutory appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh 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 the negligent or grossly negligent failure of public safety officers to rescue the occupants of a burning automobile constitute a deprivation of life without due process of law actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983?
Opinions:
Majority - Circuit Judge Posner
No, the negligent failure of state officers to rescue accident victims is not a deprivation of life under the Fourteenth Amendment because the Constitution creates negative liberties against state aggression, not positive rights to state assistance. Judge Posner reasoned that the Fourteenth Amendment was designed to protect citizens from government oppression (acting 'under color of law' to harm), not to ensure that government services are provided competently. He distinguished this scenario from cases where the state created the danger (such as taking a person into custody), noting that here, the car accident occurred independently of state action. The Court held that while the officers' inaction may have been morally or legally blameworthy under state tort law, it did not rise to a federal constitutional violation because there is no fundamental constitutional right to be rescued. Transforming such negligence into a federal case would improperly expand § 1983 into a 'mandate of highway safety' and overwhelm federal courts with local accident litigation.
Analysis:
This decision is a seminal articulation of the 'negative liberties' doctrine, establishing that the U.S. Constitution generally does not obligate the state to protect citizens from private harm or accidents. It draws a sharp line between 'state-created danger' (where the state is liable because it put the victim in peril) and mere failure to act (where the state is not liable). This reasoning foreshadowed the Supreme Court's landmark ruling in DeShaney v. Winnebago County, reinforcing the principle that § 1983 is not a catch-all remedy for local torts or government incompetence. The court emphasized federalism concerns, suggesting that remedies for ineffective public services lie in political accountability or state tort law rather than federal constitutional litigation.
