• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

Is there liability to police for failure to enforce laws?

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

pilotsmith

Junior Member
What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? CA

Police do not have a duty to protect. However, do they have a duty to enforce the law that when broken creates a basis for a civil suit for damages? For example, is there liability against the agency if a highway patrol vehicle is stopped on the freeway, and the officer observes a group of kids goofing off on the freeway shoulder, and doesn't take any action to get the youths off the freeway, and a youth later gets hit by a passing vehicle?
 


Isis1

Senior Member
What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? CA

Police do not have a duty to protect. However, do they have a duty to enforce the law that when broken creates a basis for a civil suit for damages? For example, is there liability against the agency if a highway patrol vehicle is stopped on the freeway, and the officer observes a group of kids goofing off on the freeway shoulder, and doesn't take any action to get the youths off the freeway, and a youth later gets hit by a passing vehicle?
huh?

was someone hit by a passing vehicle?

what proof do you have the police officer saw the children?

what proof do you have the police officer did not call in to a non busy officer to check on the children and the children were gone by the time the officer got there? or was the child hit before an officer was able to get there?

what proof do you have the officer was not being called to another more serious assignment?
 

CdwJava

Senior Member
Police do not have a duty to protect. However, do they have a duty to enforce the law that when broken creates a basis for a civil suit for damages?
Generally, no such duty exists for law enforcement unless they have made that special relationship whereas there is an expectation that they shall provide such protection.

For example, is there liability against the agency if a highway patrol vehicle is stopped on the freeway, and the officer observes a group of kids goofing off on the freeway shoulder, and doesn't take any action to get the youths off the freeway, and a youth later gets hit by a passing vehicle?
CAN the agency or the officer have some liability in such an instance (assuming the children have no lawful right to be there)? Perhaps, yes. But, without knowing all the details it would be impossible to say if the officer and agency DID have some liability.

However, the youth should no be on the freeway to begin with, and should not be horsing around next to traffic. The primary responsibility is his. If the officer identified the potential threat and illegal activity, and failed to take steps to act on what was obviously a public safety hazard, he might adopt some liability. There have been cases of a similar nature that have held this to be so. But, I cannot recall an instance in my nearly 19 year career where there have been a group of youths goofing around on a freeway!

Perhaps you would care to be a little more specific as to the details of your incident?
 

pilotsmith

Junior Member
I was simply having a debate with a friend over an incident where the officer told a group of people who wanted to protest that they had to get off the freeway. My position was that if the officer did not take action to get them off the freeway, that later the agency could get sued if for example a vehicle stuck one of the protestors and someone in the vehicle was hurt or even if a protestor was hurt. He said there was no duty to protect and that would extend to this situation. I felt that there was a difference between no duty to protect, and the failure to enforce the law when it is foreseeable that an injury would happen if the officer did not enforce the law (i.e.. remove or attempt to remove the protestors from the freeway.) Maybe I should have used the original facts. I tried to think of a more simple way to ask it on the forum and think I made it less clear.

So I'm trying to determine the proper legal theory, if any, for liability to a police agency for failure to act when a law is being violated in their presence, which leads to harm to a person, where the accident would have been avoided had the police enforced the law and removed the protestors from the freeway.
 

ecmst12

Senior Member
No liability, the police were doing their job asking the kids to get off the highway, not trying to protect themselves from getting sued.
 

pilotsmith

Junior Member
No liability, the police were doing their job asking the kids to get off the highway, not trying to protect themselves from getting sued.
Confused at what you are trying to say. I'm trying to determine if the police were there, and failed to take an action to try to get the protestors out from the freeway area, if there is a theory of liability to make the agency or state liable for any damages.
 

Zigner

Senior Member, Non-Attorney
Would you like to know why we don't "do" hypotheticals? It's because you can keep changing/adding/adapting the fact pattern to fit the answer you want to hear.
 

ecmst12

Senior Member
No, failing to remove the kids would not create any liability. The police and government are mostly immune from that type of lawsuit.
 

CdwJava

Senior Member
In the scenario presented I do not see any liability. And in your scenario they did take reasonable action, they ordered/advised/suggested the protesters get off the road. They opted to ignore the officer and continue on their way. It's like people who drive around police barricades at natural disasters and then get hurt or killed and the relatives try to sue the police for not stopping them ... duh!
 

pilotsmith

Junior Member
No, failing to remove the kids would not create any liability. The police and government are mostly immune from that type of lawsuit.
It is well established there is no duty to protect. However, in one case an officer reported a bridge was down to another agency and then left the scene. People later were injured of killed on that bridge. The law enforcement agency was no liable but the agency that was called to take action was found liable for taking too long to respond and put up a barrier. That made me wonder if despite no duty to protect, that there may be a duty to enforce a law when an officer is present and fails to enforce the law.

Zigner - I think both scenarios I presented are the same. Seemed like a simple question to me.
 

Zigner

Senior Member, Non-Attorney
It is well established there is no duty to protect. However, in one case an officer reported a bridge was down to another agency and then left the scene. People later were injured of killed on that bridge. The law enforcement agency was no liable but the agency that was called to take action was found liable for taking too long to respond and put up a barrier. That made me wonder if despite no duty to protect, that there may be a duty to enforce a law when an officer is present and fails to enforce the law.

Zigner - I think both scenarios I presented are the same. Seemed like a simple question to me.
Nope .
 

ecmst12

Senior Member
Your bridge situation is a COMPLETELY different matter, and any liability created had nothing to do with the POLICE failing to enforce the law and everything to do with the highway department not sending anyone out to correct or at least mark off the known hazard within a reasonable amount of time.
 

CdwJava

Senior Member
The bridge is waaaay different than the other scenario. It is much the same as the police adopting traffic control at an intersection and then abandoning it. The given rule is that once we adopt it, we cannot abandon it until some reasonable effort is made to secure the scene.
 

pilotsmith

Junior Member
Your bridge situation is a COMPLETELY different matter, and any liability created had nothing to do with the POLICE failing to enforce the law and everything to do with the highway department not sending anyone out to correct or at least mark off the known hazard within a reasonable amount of time.
Ahhhhhhh! The bridge scenario was not one of the two scenarios I was inquiring about... I only mentioned it to show the extent to which police have immunity. They can leave a bridge that has fallen down and still have no liability to people who later crash over the fallen bridge.
 

Zigner

Senior Member, Non-Attorney
Ahhhhhhh! The bridge scenario was not one of the two scenarios I was inquiring about... I only mentioned it to show the extent to which police have immunity. They can leave a bridge that has fallen down and still have no liability to people who later crash over the fallen bridge.
As I said - this is a PERFECT example of why we don't "do" hypotheticals.
 

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top