The case, determined in 1968 by the New York Courtroom of Appeals, concerned a plaintiff who sought police safety from a identified assailant. The plaintiff had repeatedly requested help, even offering particular particulars concerning the potential menace. Nevertheless, the police failed to offer safety, and the plaintiff was subsequently attacked and severely injured. The authorized motion sought to carry the municipality answerable for negligence in failing to offer ample police safety.
The ruling established a major precedent concerning the obligation of municipalities to offer police safety to particular person residents. The courtroom decided {that a} municipality will not be typically answerable for failing to offer particular police safety to a person, even when that particular person has requested such safety. This precept rests on the understanding that police sources are restricted and have to be allotted throughout the whole group, and that imposing legal responsibility in such circumstances may unduly burden municipalities. The choice acknowledges the complicated coverage concerns concerned in allocating police sources and avoids putting an unrealistic burden on native governments.
