Schuster v. City of New York
154 N.E.2d 534, 180 N.Y.S.2d 265, 5 N.Y.2d 75 (1958)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A municipality owes a special duty to use reasonable care to protect a person who has collaborated with law enforcement in the arrest of a criminal, once it reasonably appears that this person is in danger due to their collaboration.
Facts:
- Arnold Schuster supplied information to the Police Department of the City of New York regarding the whereabouts of a dangerous fugitive, Willie Sutton.
- Schuster's information led directly to Sutton's arrest.
- Schuster's role in Sutton's capture was widely publicized.
- Following the publicity, Schuster began receiving communications threatening his life.
- Schuster notified the police of the threats he was receiving.
- Three weeks after Sutton's arrest, Schuster was shot and killed near his home.
Procedural Posture:
- Schuster's administrator filed a complaint against the City of New York in the New York Supreme Court, Special Term (the trial court of first instance).
- The City of New York filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action.
- The Special Term granted the City's motion and dismissed the complaint.
- The administrator appealed to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court (the intermediate appellate court).
- The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court's dismissal of the complaint.
- The administrator appealed to the New York Court of Appeals (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 owe a special duty of care to provide police protection to a person who, after providing information leading to the arrest of a dangerous fugitive, receives life-threatening communications as a result?
Opinions:
Majority - Van Voorhis, J.
Yes, a municipality owes a special duty of care to protect individuals in Schuster's situation. When the government actively solicits and uses a citizen's help in law enforcement, a reciprocal duty arises on the part of the government to use reasonable care for that person's protection, at least where protection is reasonably demanded. This duty is distinct from the general duty to protect the public, which does not create liability to individuals. The waiver of governmental immunity allows this pre-existing common-law duty to be enforced in court. The public policy reflected in statutes that compensate citizens injured while aiding police, while not directly applicable, supports the existence of this common-law duty.
Concurring - McNally, J.
Yes, the city owed a special duty. By voluntarily assuming partial protection of Schuster, the city became subject to the duty of acting with reasonable care. Terminating that protection could constitute a breach of duty if it was reasonably apparent that the city's own actions, such as publicizing Schuster's role, had enlarged or prolonged the risk of harm to him. Once the city launched a 'force or instrument of harm' by creating a foreseeable danger for Schuster, its inaction in withdrawing protection could be a basis for liability.
Dissenting - Chief Judge Conway
No, the municipality does not owe a special duty of care. The police's duty to prevent crime is owed to the public at large, not to any specific individual. There is no statute or common-law precedent imposing a special duty to protect informants. The premise of a 'reciprocal duty' is flawed because, unlike police officers, private citizens are generally not under a legal duty to aid in law enforcement. Imposing such a special duty would create an unreasonable and 'crushing burden' on municipalities, requiring them to provide bodyguard services to countless witnesses and informants, which is practically and financially impossible.
Dissenting - Desmond, J.
No, the complaint should be dismissed. The plaintiff cannot establish causation. Years after the killing, there is no evidence identifying the assailant or their motive, making the claim that Schuster was killed for informing on Sutton mere speculation or a guess, which is an insufficient basis for a lawsuit.
Dissenting - Froessel, J.
No, the majority is creating a new rule of law without precedent. The complaint is legally insufficient because it fails to plead facts showing that a breach of duty was the cause-in-fact of Schuster's death; there is no allegation that Sutton's associates actually threatened or killed him. Established precedent holds that municipalities are not liable for failure to provide adequate police or fire protection. The Legislature has already defined the limits of liability for aiding police in Penal Law § 1848, and the court should not expand it.
Analysis:
This landmark decision establishes a significant exception to the public duty doctrine, which generally shields municipalities from liability for failing to protect individual citizens from crime. The court created a 'special relationship' basis for liability when a citizen collaborates with police, is thereby placed in a foreseeable zone of danger, and the government is aware of the threat. This ruling paved the way for future claims against government entities based on special relationships, such as those involving 911 dispatch negligence or failure to protect witnesses under police control. It shifted municipal liability law by recognizing that specific government actions can create an affirmative, enforceable duty to protect an individual, rather than just the public at large.
Unlock the full brief for Schuster v. City of New York