Riss v. New York
22 NY 2d 579, 240 NE 2d 860 (1968)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A municipality's duty to provide police protection is owed to the public at large and not to a specific individual; therefore, the municipality is not liable in tort for the failure to protect an individual from a criminal act, absent a special relationship.
Facts:
- For over six months, Linda Riss was terrorized by a rejected suitor, Burton Pugach.
- Pugach repeatedly threatened to have Riss killed or maimed if she did not yield to him, stating, "If I can’t have you, no one else will have you."
- Fearing for her life, Riss made numerous pleas to the New York City police for protection.
- The police offered little assistance; one detective told Riss they could not act until she was actually hurt.
- On June 14, 1959, Riss became engaged to another man.
- While celebrating her engagement, Riss received a phone call warning her that it was her "last chance."
- Riss immediately called the police begging for help but was refused protection.
- The following day, a hired assailant threw lye in Riss's face at Pugach's direction, causing her to be blinded in one eye, lose significant vision in the other, and suffer permanent facial scarring.
Procedural Posture:
- Linda Riss sued the City of New York in a New York trial court for negligence.
- The case proceeded to trial.
- After both sides presented their evidence but before the case was submitted to the jury, the trial court dismissed Riss's complaint.
- Riss, as appellant, appealed the dismissal to the Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court, an intermediate appellate court.
- A divided panel of the Appellate Division affirmed the trial court's dismissal.
- Riss, as appellant, appealed that decision to the Court of Appeals of New York, the state's highest court.
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 municipality have a special duty to provide police protection to a specific person who has repeatedly requested help due to credible threats of violence, such that the municipality can be held liable in tort for its failure to do so?
Opinions:
Majority - Breitel, J.
No. A municipality does not owe a duty to provide police protection to a specific member of the public. The duty to provide police services is a general governmental function owed to the public at large, not a specific duty owed to individuals. The allocation of limited police resources is a discretionary legislative and executive function, and imposing tort liability would improperly force the judiciary to dictate how those resources are deployed. This would create unpredictable and limitless liability for municipalities. Unlike proprietary functions like running hospitals or transit systems, or cases where police create a special relationship (e.g., protecting an informant), there is no basis in judicial tradition or statute to create a new area of tort liability for general police protection.
Dissenting - Keating, J.
Yes. The City of New York should be held liable for its negligent failure to protect an individual when it has notice of a specific and credible threat. The 'public duty' doctrine is an unjust relic of sovereign immunity that effectively means a duty owed to everyone is a duty owed to no one. The fear of 'crushing' financial liability is a myth, as standard tort principles of fault, proximate cause, and foreseeability would keep liability within reasonable bounds. In this case, the police were plainly negligent; they had actual notice of a verifiable danger and failed to take reasonable steps. Imposing liability would properly place the cost of inadequate policing on the municipality and create a powerful incentive for public officials to provide at least minimally adequate protection.
Analysis:
This landmark case firmly establishes the 'public duty doctrine' regarding police services, holding that a government's duty to protect its citizens is a general duty owed to the public, not a specific duty to any individual. This decision significantly limits municipal liability for failure to prevent crime, requiring a plaintiff to prove a 'special relationship' with the police to succeed on such a claim. The ruling creates a high barrier for victims of crime seeking to hold police accountable for inaction, cementing the idea that the allocation of police resources is a discretionary government function immune from tort liability except in narrow circumstances. It has become a foundational case in municipal tort law across the United States.
Unlock the full brief for Riss v. New York