special duty arises once it reasonably appears that persons who assist in arrest or prosecution of criminals are themselves in danger due to assistance
How later courts described this case
- special duty arises once it reasonably appears that persons who assist in arrest or prosecution of criminals are themselves in danger due to assistance
- an informer was shot and killed after the fact that he had supplied information leading to defendant’s arrest was widely publicized
- a special duty owed where plaintiffs intestate was murdered after supplying police with information leading to the arrest of a dangerous fugitive
- city deemed to have undertaken a special duty to protect a police informant whose life had been threatened
Written by the judges who cited it.
Distinguished
Distinguished by Estate of Tanasijevich v. City of Hammond, 178 Ind. App. 669 (1978)
We here reject the City of Hammond’s contention that the holding in Schuster v. City of New York, supra, is inapplicable to the instant case because Schuster involved the notorious and dangerous Willie Sutton.
The opinion
Desmond, J. (dissenting).
I vote for affirmance on the grounds stated by the Chief Judge and on an additional ground. The allegations of the complaint and the concessions of counsel make it entirely clear that, six years after the event, plaintiff has no knowledge or information whatever as to the identity • or motives of his son’s assailant or assailants. Thus, the suit is based on what must be a mere guess (or choice among mere possibilities—Ingersoll v. Liberty Bank of Buffalo, 278 N. Y. 1, 7 ) that Arnold Schuster was killed because he informed on Sutton. It is evident that there is a complete absence not only of knowledge but even of information that the killing was related to Arnold Schuster’s activity as an informer.