Wanzer v. District of Columbia
1990 WL 141041, 580 A.2d 127 (1990)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the public duty doctrine, a government entity and its agents owe a duty to the public at large, not to a specific individual, unless a special relationship is formed. A special relationship is not created by a single 911 call for help, nor by internal agency protocols that are not mandated by statute.
Facts:
- At approximately 3:30 a.m. on December 27, 1986, James Lee called the District of Columbia's "911" emergency number.
- Lee informed the dispatcher that he had a "terrific headache" unlike any he had ever experienced before.
- The dispatcher questioned Lee about whether he had taken aspirin for the headache.
- After suggesting that taking an aspirin would be logical, the dispatcher ended the call without dispatching an ambulance.
- Approximately nine hours later, Lee's neighbor called 911 again on his behalf.
- An ambulance was dispatched after the second call and took Lee to the hospital, where he was diagnosed with a stroke.
- James Lee died two days later.
Procedural Posture:
- Irene Wanzer, as representative of James Lee's estate, sued the District of Columbia in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia (the trial court) for wrongful death and negligence.
- The District of Columbia filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
- The trial court granted the District of Columbia's motion to dismiss.
- Wanzer, as the appellant, appealed the dismissal to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, the highest court in the jurisdiction.
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 single 911 call to a government-run emergency medical service, which does not result in the dispatch of aid, create a special relationship that gives rise to a legally enforceable duty of care owed by the government to the individual caller?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Terry
No. A single 911 call for help does not establish a special relationship giving rise to a specific duty of care owed by the government to an individual. The court first held that the District's publicly operated Emergency Medical Service (EMS) is a governmental function, akin to police and fire services, and is therefore subject to the public duty doctrine. Under this doctrine, liability can only attach if a special relationship exists between the government agency and the individual. The court found that Lee's one-time call to 911 did not establish such a relationship because the agency's response must demonstrably exceed the response generally made to the public, which did not occur here. Furthermore, the court rejected the argument that internal EMS protocols created a special duty, holding that such internal guidelines do not have the force of law and cannot create a special duty to a protected class in the way a statute can.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the application of the public duty doctrine to government-run emergency medical services in the District of Columbia, treating them identically to police and fire departments for tort liability purposes. It clarifies that neither a single call for help nor internal agency procedures are sufficient to create the 'special relationship' required to overcome governmental immunity. This ruling establishes a high bar for plaintiffs seeking to hold the government liable for negligence in the provision of emergency services, requiring them to show either a course of conduct creating a specific undertaking or a statutory mandate of protection.
Unlock the full brief for Wanzer v. District of Columbia