Trigger Warning: This case discusses the sensitive topic of sexual assault, viewer discretion is advised.
Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. 1981)
[ Ссылка ]
Appellants Carolyn Warren, Miriam Douglas, and Joan Taliaferro in No. 79-6, and appellant Wilfred Nichol in No. 79-394 sued the District of Columbia and individual members of the Metropolitan Police Department for negligent failure to provide adequate police services. The respective trial judges held that the police were under no specific legal duty to provide protection to the individual appellants and dismissed the complaints for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Super.Ct.Civ.R. 12(b)(6). However, in a split decision a three-judge division of this court determined that appellants Warren, Taliaferro and Nichol were owed a special duty of care by the police department and reversed the trial court rulings. The division unanimously concluded that appellant Douglas failed to fit within the class of persons to whom a special duty was owed, and affirmed the lower court's dismissal of her complaint. The court en banc, on petitions for rehearing, vacated the panel's decision. After rearguments, notwithstanding our sympathy for appellants who were the tragic victims of despicable criminal acts, we affirm the judgments of dismissal.
Follow Uncivil Law on Discord (blackleaf): [ Ссылка ]
Follow Uncivil Law on Twitter: [ Ссылка ]
Follow Uncivil Law on Facebook: [ Ссылка ]
Follow Uncivil Law on Twitch: [ Ссылка ]
Send me Stuff:
Uncivil Law
1401 Lavaca St # 602
Austin, TX 78701-1634
Camera: Sony A5100
Lens: Sigma 30mm F 1.4
Mic: Rode NT1A
This channel provides general information about law. The content of this channel does not provide individual or specific legal advice for any specific situation. Consult a lawyer in your jurisdiction for specific legal questions.
