concluding that, under Restatement (Second) Of Torts § 320 (1965), the defendants “may have been in a special relationship with [the third person] because of their custody of and control over him”
How later courts described this case
- concluding that, under Restatement (Second) Of Torts § 320 (1965), the defendants “may have been in a special relationship with [the third person] because of their custody of and control over him”
- noting "[j]udges and commentators criticizing the rule have focused on the unfairness inherent in a rule that results in a duty to none when there is a duty to all, and pointed out the tortured analyses that result when courts seek to avoid such harsh results without squarely facing the underlying problem"
- stating "[b]y recognizing that the public duty rule is incompatible with the [tort claims] Act, we align ourselves with most jurisdictions that have squarely considered the issue"
- delaying for one legislative session decision to abolish “public duty rule” prospectively to give Legislature opportunity to consider forthcoming change in decisional law, and “to make any preparations for the change that it deems appropriate”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
By the Court.
The judgment of the Superior Court dismissing the complaint is reversed. The plaintiffs shall have thirty days from the date of the issuance of the rescript to file an amended complaint in the Superior Court. The case is remanded to the Superior Court for further proceedings.
So ordered.
Separate opinions of Chief Justice Liacos; Justice Wilkins, with whom Justice Abrams joins; Justice O’Connor, with whom Justices Nolan and Lynch join; and Justice Greaney appear below.