## Facts

- Robert D. Bassett, a homeowner, alleged he was injured during Officer Paul Lamantia’s pursuit of a criminal suspect on or near Bassett’s property.
- Bassett claimed his injuries were caused directly by Lamantia’s affirmative acts, not by a third party whom Lamantia failed to control or protect against.
- Bassett sued Lamantia and the City of Billings for negligence under Montana law and also asserted a federal civil-rights claim.
- A federal district court granted summary judgment for defendants on the negligence claim, reasoning that the public duty doctrine barred liability absent a “special relationship.”
- The Ninth Circuit certified a question to the Montana Supreme Court, which accepted and reformulated it to address whether the public duty doctrine excludes duties arising from generally applicable negligence principles when an officer’s affirmative acts directly cause injury.

## Issues

1. When a plaintiff alleges injury directly caused by a law-enforcement officer’s affirmative acts, does Montana’s public duty doctrine exclude all negligence duties that may otherwise arise under generally applicable tort principles?

## Decision

- The Montana Supreme Court answered the reformulated certified question: No.
- The public duty doctrine applies only to an officer’s general duty to protect the public from harms inflicted by third persons or other independent sources.
- Because Bassett alleged direct injury from Lamantia’s affirmative acts, the public duty doctrine did not negate duty.
- Under ordinary negligence principles, Lamantia owed Bassett a duty to exercise the care of a reasonable officer with similar skill, training, and experience under similar circumstances.
- The court did not decide breach, causation, or damages; it provided the governing Montana duty analysis for further proceedings in federal court.

## Legal Principles

- The public duty doctrine limits tort liability for breach of law enforcement’s general duty to protect the public; absent a special relationship, that general duty does not create a duty owed to each individual plaintiff.
- The doctrine does not bar negligence duties arising from an officer’s own affirmative conduct that directly causes injury to a person.
- When an officer’s affirmative acts directly injure a plaintiff, the officer’s conduct is assessed under generally applicable negligence principles, using a reasonable-officer standard calibrated to comparable skill, training, and experience.

## Conclusion

Montana law confines the public duty doctrine to failure-to-protect claims and does not allow it to eliminate the negligence duty owed to a person allegedly injured directly by an officer’s affirmative acts; such claims proceed under ordinary negligence duty and a reasonable-officer standard.


Bassett v. Lamantia, 417 P.3d 299 (Mont. 2018)