Qualified Immunity & Municipal Liability

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY
This is where your lawsuit will stop if you are not totally prepared and make excellent arguments. 
If you have not made additional Tort claims, and only claims prevented by this doctrine, your case will be judged for the Defendants.

This is likely THE hurdle you will face even with a meritorious case. 

If the Defendants remove to Federal Court, you will be researching many cases and learning to format pleadings all over again, in addition to the strict intrepretation applied of this doctrine. 

**THIS IS VERY DIFFICULT TO OVERCOME IN COURT as a PRO SE party!***

Public Duty Doctrine

a doctrine in tort law: a government entity (as a state or municipality) cannot be held liable for the injuries of an individual resulting from a public officer's or employee's breach of a duty owed to the public as a whole as distinguished from a duty owed to the particular individual called also public duty rule see also special duty doctrine

Special Duty Doctrine

The exception to the public duty doctrine that imposes liability for injury on a government entity when there is a special duty owed to the plaintiff but not to the public at large called also special duty exception 

No duty exists unless the plaintiff establishes that the agency owed a special duty to the injured party.

Regarding the "special duty exception" to the public duty doctrine, a special duty of care exists when 

(1) officials, by their actions, affirmatively 

undertake to protect the plaintiff, and the plaintiff relies upon the undertaking; 

2) a statute specifically provides for a cause of action against 

an official or municipality for injuries resulting to a particular class of individuals, of which the plaintiff is a member, from failure to enforce certain laws; or 

3) the plaintiff alleges a cause of action involving intent, malice, or reckless misconduct.

The justifiable reliance element of the special relationship exception to the public duty doctrine requires one to have detrimentally relied upon an express assurance given by a government official.

A special relationship imposing an actionable duty to perform arises between the plaintiff and a government entity when

(1) there is direct contact or privity between the public official and the injured plaintiff which sets the latter apart from the general public, and 

(2) there are express assurances given by a public official, which 

(3) gives rise to justifiable reliance on the part of the plaintiff.'

(4) The official then acts intentionally or recklessly in a manner which could foreseeably harm the plaintiff

(5) The plaintiff does suffer harm

-----------------------------------

PUBLIC DUTY DOCTRINE CHECKLIST:

What was the duty owed?

How was it breached?

Why is it related to the damages? 

Who could have seen the error and when?

What has specifically been done to address the error?

Did the defendant have a duty of toward the plaintiff?  If so, was it a duty of reasonable care, or another type of relationship between the plaintiff and defendant?

Did the defendant use the same amount of reasonable care that another person in his position would have used to prevent harm?

Did the defendant foresee the risk of harm to the plaintiff, or should he reasonably have foreseen it?

What kind of alternatives were available that might have prevented the harm?  alternative actions

Was the burden of using safer alternatives considerably heavier than the risk involved in not using them?

------------------------------------

SEE ALSO: Liability and Remedies:

Comparative negligence

Assumption of risk

Last clear chance 

Eggshell skull 

Vicarious liability 

Volenti non fit injuria 

Ex turpi causa non oritur actio 

Neutral reportage 

Damages 

Injunction  

Joint and several liability