## Facts

- An adult allowed his minor son to host an underage drinking party on leased rural property near Whitewood, South Dakota; alcohol was supplied and attendees were charged to drink.
- Lawrence County deputies received an anonymous tip about the party and responded to investigate.
- A deputy entered through an unlocked gate, observed signs consistent with a party, and spoke with an adult present.
- The deputy left to confer with another deputy and their chief deputy about investigative options; before returning, the deputies received a higher-priority call and did not immediately go back to stop the party.
- Michael Gleason later arrived at the party and did not consume alcohol.
- Other attendees assaulted Michael, causing serious injuries requiring emergency treatment.
- Michael and his parents sued various private actors and also sued the deputies and Lawrence County for negligence based on the failure to shut down the party or otherwise protect Michael.
- The trial court granted summary judgment to the deputies and the county, concluding any duty was owed to the public generally and no special duty to Michael was shown.

## Issues

1. Whether, under the public-duty doctrine, law enforcement’s duty to investigate and respond to a reported underage drinking party is owed to the public at large, barring an individual negligence claim.
2. Whether the deputies’ conduct created a special duty or special relationship with Michael Gleason sufficient to impose an individualized duty of protection.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of South Dakota affirmed summary judgment for the deputies and Lawrence County.
- The court held the deputies’ response to the underage drinking report involved a general public law-enforcement duty, not a duty owed to Michael individually.
- The court held no special duty or special relationship arose because there was no direct undertaking toward Michael, no specific assurances to him or his parents, and no reliance.
- The deputies’ initial investigation and later departure to address other law-enforcement matters did not constitute an assumption of a specific duty to protect Michael from third-party assaults.

## Legal Principles

- Under the public-duty doctrine, governmental entities and officers generally owe duties of law enforcement and public safety to the public, not to particular individuals, and breach of such duties does not create individual tort liability absent an exception.
- A special duty/special relationship requires evidence such as a specific undertaking or assurances directed to the plaintiff, reliance on those assurances, and a connection between reliance and the injury.
- Mere investigation or partial response to a reported public-safety problem, without an affirmative undertaking directed to the plaintiff that increases the plaintiff’s risk, does not create an individualized duty to protect against criminal acts of third parties.

## Conclusion

The court held that the deputies and county owed only a general duty to the public in responding to the reported underage drinking party and that the record showed no special relationship or special duty to Michael Gleason; therefore, the public-duty doctrine barred the negligence claim and summary judgment was proper.


Gleason v. Peters, 568 N.W.2d 482 (S.D. 1997)