Leake v. Cain
55 U.S.L.W. 2013, 1986 Colo. LEXIS 574, 720 P.2d 152 (1986)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The public duty rule is abolished in Colorado, meaning a public entity's duty in a negligence action is determined by the same conventional tort principles as a private party. Police officers do not owe a duty to prevent a third person from harming another absent a special relationship, which is not created when officers briefly detain an intoxicated person and release them to an apparently sober caretaker.
Facts:
- On September 9, 1978, eighteen-year-old Ralph Crowe attended an outdoor party where he drank a significant amount of alcohol.
- Commerce City police officers arrived to break up the party.
- Ralph Crowe became disruptive, leading the officers to handcuff and detain him.
- Eddie Crowe, Ralph's seventeen-year-old brother, approached the officers, appeared sober, and requested that Ralph be released to him, promising to drive Ralph home.
- The officers checked Eddie's driver's license and released Ralph Crowe into his custody.
- After leaving the party with Eddie driving, Ralph Crowe later took control of the vehicle.
- Ralph Crowe drove to the new location of the party and struck six people, killing two.
- A subsequent test revealed Ralph Crowe's blood alcohol content was .20.
Procedural Posture:
- The parents of the deceased victims (respondents) filed a wrongful death action in the Denver District Court (trial court) against the Commerce City police officers and the City of Commerce City (petitioners).
- Petitioners filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing they owed no 'special duty' to the victims under the public duty doctrine.
- The trial court granted the petitioners' motion for summary judgment, finding the officers did not owe a special duty to the victims.
- Respondents appealed the summary judgment to the Colorado Court of Appeals (intermediate appellate court).
- The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's decision, holding that the officers' actions were not discretionary and therefore not protected by immunity, but it did not address the public duty rule.
- Petitioners sought, and the Colorado Supreme Court (highest court) granted, a writ of certiorari.
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 police officer owe a duty of care to members of the public to prevent a person, whom the officer briefly detains for being disruptive and intoxicated but releases to a sober caretaker, from later causing a fatal car accident?
Opinions:
Majority - Erickson, J.
No. Police officers do not owe a duty of care to the public under these circumstances. The court formally abolishes the public duty rule in Colorado, stating that the liability of public entities should be determined in the same manner as private persons. However, under conventional tort principles, there is no duty to prevent a third person from harming another unless a 'special relation' exists between the actor and the wrongdoer or victim. Here, no special relationship was created because the officers did not encounter Crowe while he was driving, nor did they have reason to believe he would drive. Their duty to control Crowe began and ended at the party when they released him to his apparently sober brother, who promised to take him home. Furthermore, the emergency commitment statute was intended to protect the intoxicated person, not to create a private cause of action for third parties injured by them. Finally, the officers' decision was discretionary and thus protected by qualified immunity.
Concurring - Rovira, J.
No. While I agree with the conclusion that the officers owed no duty and are protected by immunity, the court should not have addressed or abolished the public duty rule. The case can be resolved entirely on conventional tort principles, as the respondents' claims fail under that analysis. The court of appeals did not address the public duty issue, and the parties did not brief it before this court. Deciding such a significant issue without the benefit of briefs and when it is not necessary for the resolution of the case is improper.
Analysis:
This landmark decision abolishes the public duty doctrine in Colorado, a significant barrier that had previously shielded government entities from negligence claims by requiring plaintiffs to prove a 'special duty' owed to them individually. The ruling aligns Colorado with a modern trend of applying standard tort principles to public and private actors alike. However, the court's ultimate finding of no liability demonstrates that even without the public duty rule, establishing a duty for police nonfeasance remains difficult. The case underscores that plaintiffs must still prove a 'special relationship' under traditional tort law, setting a high bar for holding police liable for the subsequent actions of individuals they briefly encounter.
