« "laws are for the little people" | Main | "Progressive" San Francisco prosecutor recalled »
Uvalde shooting: government liability?
General legal premise: no person owes a legal duty to another, absent some special relationship. As they teach in Torts 101, if a person sees another person drowning, realizes he can save them at no risk to himself, and instead decides just to watch, he may have breached a moral duty, but not a legal one. The same holds true (with much less basis) of a law enforcement agency and a victim of crime. Warren v. District of Columbia being a particularly stunning case.
BUT -- if others choose to rescue the drowning person, the onlooker must not hinder them. Nor can the onlooker create the false impression that he is trying to rescue the person, because that might inhibit other people from trying to do it. The onlooker need not attempt a rescue himself, but if he does anything to reduce the chance that another might choose to do it, he becomes legally liable for the outcome.
I'd say that tackling and handcuffing people who were trying to go in meets that test. So would stopping the Border Patrol agents who were willing to charge in.
Hat tip to reader Jay Dee for this idea.
6 Comments | Leave a comment
In Japan, the hand can be used like a knife. But this doesn’t work with a tomato.
And a tort would be a personal suit against the officers, not the department, right?
"personal suit against the officers, not the department, right?"
I hope we find out.
Would be interesting to find that an officer working for the on-scene commander could claim he was following orders of that commander, and that liability rolls uphill (for once) to the on-scene commander himself.
I think tort liability also follows a standard of care model---everyone in the peace office profession is taught that the standard is "charge in, find the shooter, bypass injured" and the on-scene commander failed that standard.
Not sure the standard of care kicks in until after action begins. If the competent authority chose to do nothing, the standard of care probably wouldn’t apply.
With the release of the time line and the less than 5 minute gap for cops on scene and standing around inside, I have to wonder if the liability is not just civil but potentially criminal? Involuntary Manslaughter? Negligent Homicide?
In France Tort Law is Different.