## Facts

- Edward G. Lauer’s three-year-old son died on August 7, 1993.
- A New York City medical examiner performed an autopsy and reported the death as a homicide caused by blunt injuries; a death certificate issued the next day likewise listed homicide.
- Police began a homicide investigation that focused primarily on Lauer.
- Further medical study later concluded the child died of a ruptured brain aneurysm, contradicting the homicide determination.
- The medical examiner’s office did not correct the autopsy report or death certificate and did not notify law enforcement of the revised medical conclusion.
- The investigation continued for about 17 months, ending after media attention; the findings were revised and an amended death certificate issued.
- Lauer alleged severe emotional distress and other harms caused by the continued investigation, attributing his injury to the failure to correct and communicate the known error rather than the initial misdiagnosis.

## Issues

1. Whether a municipality may be liable in negligence for a medical examiner’s failure to correct an autopsy report and death certificate and to inform law enforcement after learning the initial homicide conclusion was wrong.
2. Whether the medical examiner owed the plaintiff a duty of care running to him individually, rather than a duty owed only to the public at large, sufficient to support a negligent infliction of emotional distress claim.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division and dismissed the complaint in its entirety.
- The court held that the plaintiff failed to plead a duty owed to him individually, a necessary predicate for negligence liability against a municipality performing a governmental function.
- The court concluded that statutory and common-law obligations concerning death investigations and recordkeeping were owed to the public generally, and did not create a private duty to the plaintiff absent a special relationship.

## Legal Principles

- Negligence liability requires a duty of care; without duty, the claim fails regardless of foreseeability or severity of harm.
- When a municipality acts in a governmental capacity, a plaintiff must show a “special duty” owed to the plaintiff individually, not merely duties owed to the public.
- A special duty may arise from a special relationship (e.g., direct contact, specific assurances, and reliance) or from a statute intended to benefit a particular class, but generalized public-safety or recordkeeping statutes typically do not create privately enforceable tort duties.
- Negligent infliction of emotional distress claims premised on governmental conduct still require an underlying, cognizable duty to the plaintiff.

## Conclusion

The court held that the City could not be liable for negligent infliction of emotional distress based on the medical examiner’s failure to correct official records and notify law enforcement because those functions were performed for the public generally and no special duty to the plaintiff was shown.


Lauer v. City of New York, 95 N.Y.2d 95 (2000)