Schroder v. City of Fort Thomas

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
412 F.3d 724 (2005)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

The Due Process Clause does not impose an affirmative duty on a municipality to guarantee public safety. Therefore, a city's failure to lower a speed limit or adequately enforce existing traffic laws does not constitute a substantive due process violation under the state-created danger doctrine, as such inaction is not an affirmative act that creates a special danger or conduct that shocks the conscience.

Facts:

In 1976, the City of Fort Thomas set the speed limit on Garrison Avenue at 25 miles per hour.
Kimberly Schroder and her family moved to Garrison Avenue in May 1996.
Between 1996 and 1999, Schroder and other residents repeatedly complained to city officials about drivers routinely exceeding the speed limit and requested that it be lowered.
In response to complaints, police advised residents to report license plate numbers but took no further action regarding traffic conditions and removed resident-posted signs urging a 15 mph speed limit.
On June 28, 2000, a car driven by Phillip Bridges, traveling at an estimated 40 miles per hour, struck and killed the Schroders' ten-year-old son, Stephen Schroder, as he crossed the street.
The driver, Phillip Bridges, pleaded guilty to second-degree manslaughter for Stephen Schroder's death.
In August 2000, following the accident, the City of Fort Thomas lowered the speed limit on Garrison Avenue to 15 miles per hour.

Procedural Posture:

Kimberly and Lawrence Schroder filed a § 1983 action against the City of Fort Thomas and several city officials in the U.S. District Court, alleging substantive due process violations and state-law claims.
The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing their actions did not constitute a constitutional violation.
The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the City and its officials on all claims.
The Schroders, as appellants, appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment on their federal constitutional claims to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth 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 a city's failure to lower a speed limit on a residential street or its inadequate enforcement of the existing speed limit violate a citizen's substantive due process rights under the state-created danger doctrine when a private driver's speeding results in a fatal accident?

Opinions:

Majority - Sutton, Circuit Judge

No, a city's failure to lower a speed limit or adequately enforce it does not violate a citizen's substantive due process rights. The court reasoned that the Due Process Clause is a limitation on the state's power to act, not a guarantee of minimal safety, as established in DeShaney v. Winnebago County. The harm to Stephen Schroder was directly caused by a private actor—the speeding driver—not the state. The court analyzed and rejected the applicability of the 'state-created danger' exception, finding that the Schroders failed all three prongs of the circuit's test. First, the City's management of a public road was too indirect to be an 'affirmative act' creating the peril; rather, it was a failure to act. Second, the risk from speeding cars was a danger to the general public on that street, not a 'special danger' targeting the victim. Third, the City's conduct did not rise to the level of 'deliberate indifference' that 'shocks the conscience.' The City's decision was a policy choice involving competing interests and resource allocation, and while potentially shortsighted, it was not the kind of egregious or arbitrary conduct that constitutes a constitutional violation.

Analysis:

This decision significantly reinforces the high threshold for state-created danger claims, particularly those arising from a government's alleged inaction or policy choices regarding public infrastructure. It clarifies that ordinary municipal governance, such as setting speed limits and allocating police resources, is generally insulated from constitutional liability under § 1983, even when tragic consequences follow. By emphasizing that 'it is not a tort for government to govern,' the court signals strong deference to local policy decisions. The case solidifies the principle that to meet the 'deliberate indifference' standard in this context, a plaintiff must show conduct far more egregious than poor judgment or failure to heed warnings—the conduct must be arbitrary and 'shock the conscience.'

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Schroder v. City of Fort Thomas (2005)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"