Kircher v. City of Jamestown
New York Court of Appeals
74 N.Y.2d 251, 543 N.E.2d 443 (1989)
- Written by Salina Kennedy, JD
Facts
Deborah Kircher (plaintiff) was abducted in a parking lot, forced into her car, and driven to another town, where her abductor raped and assaulted her, causing serious injuries. Two witnesses saw the abduction and heard Kircher scream for help. The witnesses followed Kircher’s car until losing sight of it and immediately gave a detailed report of the abduction to Bruce Carlson (defendant), a police officer. Carlson told the witnesses he would call in their report but then failed to do so. Believing that Carlson would keep his word, the witnesses did not continue their attempt to pursue Kircher’s car and they made no further police reports. Kircher sued both Carlson (defendant) and the City of Jamestown (defendant), arguing that Carlson had negligently failed to render her assistance and that Jamestown was vicariously liable for Carlson’s negligence. Carlson and Jamestown moved for summary judgment, arguing that Carlson did not have a duty to render Kircher assistance because she did not have a special relationship with Jamestown. The trial court denied the motion, and the appellate division reversed. The New York Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Alexander, J.)
Dissent (Bellacosa, J.)
Dissent (Hancock, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 820,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 989 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.