## Facts

- A series of stabbings had occurred at or near a public laundromat on three earlier occasions.
- The night before Yolanda Davidson was stabbed, Westminster police officers surveilled the laundromat during another stabbing, chased the suspect, and did not apprehend him.
- The next night, the same officers again conducted surveillance to prevent assaults and catch the attacker; they knew Davidson was inside.
- The officers observed a man who closely resembled the prior night’s attacker; after watching him for about 15 minutes, they believed he was the likely assailant.
- The suspect entered and exited the laundromat several times while the officers continued surveillance.
- The officers did not warn Davidson about the suspect or otherwise intervene before she was stabbed four times.
- Davidson and her husband sued the city and officers for negligent investigation, failure to protect, failure to warn, and intentional/negligent infliction of emotional distress.
- Defendants demurred, arguing no “special relationship” creating a duty and, alternatively, statutory immunity for failure to provide adequate police protection.

## Issues

1. Whether police officers owed Davidson a duty to warn or protect against a third party’s criminal act based on a special relationship with Davidson.
2. Whether police officers owed Davidson a duty to warn or protect based on a special relationship with, or control over, the assailant.
3. Whether statutory immunity for failure to provide adequate police protection barred the action even if a duty otherwise existed.

## Decision

- The California Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal after plaintiffs declined to amend following a sustained demurrer.
- The court held no special relationship existed between the officers and Davidson that created an individualized duty to warn or protect.
- The court held no special relationship existed between the officers and the assailant because the officers neither had custody of nor control over him.
- Because the absence of duty was dispositive, the court did not need to decide immunity as an independent basis for affirmance.

## Legal Principles

- Liability for failure to protect against third-party criminal acts generally requires a special relationship either:
  - between the defendant and the victim (an undertaking or obligation to protect a particular person), or
  - between the defendant and the third party (a relationship giving rise to a duty to control the third party).
- Police surveillance undertaken as a general law-enforcement function to protect the public does not, without direct contact, assurances, or reliance, create an individualized duty to a particular member of the public.
- Foreseeability of harm alone does not establish a duty; courts also consider factors including the connection between omission and injury, moral blame, prevention of harm, and burdens and community consequences of imposing liability.
- Observation of a suspected offender, without custody or comparable control, does not create a duty to restrain the suspect or warn potential victims.

## Conclusion

The court declined to impose tort liability on police for failing to warn or protect an individual during a surveillance operation because the complaint alleged no special relationship with the victim and no custodial control over the assailant; thus, no duty arose, and dismissal was proper.


Davidson v. City of Westminster, 649 P.2d 894 (Cal. 1982)