Morgan v. District of Columbia
1983 D.C. App. LEXIS 527, 468 A.2d 1306 (1983)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the public duty doctrine, a government and its police force are not liable for failing to protect individual citizens from crime unless a 'special relationship' exists between the police and the victim. Such a relationship is created only when the police affirmatively undertake to protect a specific individual and the individual justifiably relies on that undertaking.
Facts:
- Garnett Morgan's husband, John Morgan, was a Metropolitan Police Department officer.
- In August 1974, after a month-earlier beating, John Morgan threatened Garnett Morgan with his service revolver, telling her he would kill her if she did not leave their home.
- Garnett Morgan called her husband's superior, Captain Tiernan, reported the beating and the gun threat, expressed fear for her life, and asked Tiernan to 'just make [her husband] stay away from' her.
- She declined to file a formal complaint with Maryland authorities or a written complaint with Captain Tiernan because she did not want to 'intimidate' her husband.
- Captain Tiernan met with John Morgan and his direct supervisor, telling Morgan that 'if he couldn’t get along with his wife, that he should leave.'
- Tiernan then called Garnett Morgan, told her he had spoken to her husband, and suggested it would be best if they separated.
- Garnett Morgan moved to a new apartment with an unlisted number to hide from her husband, calling Tiernan only to confirm her husband was at work so she could move safely.
- Three months later, John Morgan found Garnett's new apartment, choked her, abducted their children, and later, at her parents' house, shot and wounded her and their son, and shot and killed her father, Elton Pinkney.
Procedural Posture:
- Appellants sued the District of Columbia in the trial court for negligence and wrongful death.
- A jury returned a verdict in favor of the appellants.
- The trial court granted the District of Columbia's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV), overturning the jury's decision.
- Appellants appealed to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals.
- A three-judge panel of the appellate court reversed the trial court, reinstating the jury verdict.
- The full District of Columbia Court of Appeals vacated the panel's decision and agreed to rehear the case en banc.
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 'special relationship' sufficient to create an actionable duty of care exist between the police and an individual when that individual reports domestic abuse and gun threats from her police officer husband, and the police respond by speaking to the officer but take no further protective action?
Opinions:
Majority - Gallagher, J.
No. A special relationship sufficient to impose liability on the police did not exist. The public duty doctrine shields police from liability for failing to protect individual citizens from crime because their duty is to the public at large. An exception exists for a 'special relationship,' which requires both a specific undertaking by the police to protect a particular individual and justifiable reliance by that individual. Here, Garnett Morgan did not request protection; she asked Captain Tiernan to speak to her husband, which he did. Tiernan made no promise of protection, and his actions did not constitute an affirmative undertaking to ensure her safety. Furthermore, Garnett Morgan did not justifiably rely on the police for protection; instead, she took her own protective measures by moving and concealing her whereabouts. The department's internal general orders regarding investigations of firearm misuse create a duty to the public, not a special duty to a particular class of individuals like officers' spouses.
Dissenting - Ferren, J.
Yes. The majority's 'special relationship' analysis is irrelevant because this case is not about a failure to protect a citizen from a third-party criminal. The core issue is the police department's negligent supervision of its own officer and its failure to control his service revolver. The police department owes a general duty to the public to use reasonable care in supervising its officers. Given that Captain Tiernan was aware of Officer Morgan's violent threats involving a firearm, a jury could reasonably find that the department was negligent in its supervision and that it was foreseeable that he would use his weapon to harm his family if no action was taken.
Analysis:
This case firmly establishes the public duty doctrine and its 'special relationship' exception as the governing framework in the District of Columbia for claims of negligent failure to protect. The court sets a high bar for establishing a special relationship, requiring both a specific, affirmative undertaking by police and particularized, justifiable reliance by the victim. This decision significantly limits the government's liability for police inaction, particularly in domestic violence situations, and prioritizes police discretion over creating individualized duties of care, even when the perpetrator is a police officer known to be dangerous.
