Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

Officer Lamantia (D) and his partner responded to a neighborhood disturbance. D observed a male suspect running into a driveway. The suspect jumped over a retaining wall and proceeded into Bassett's (P) backyard. D identified himself as a police officer and ordered the suspect to stop. The suspect continued to run and D followed on foot, jumping over the retaining wall but dropping his flashlight in the process. P came out of his house. D, searching for his flashlight, heard footsteps behind him and turned around to see P approach. Fearing for his safety, D tackled P. D released P as soon as he realized that P was not a threat. D continued pursuit. Later that morning, D returned to check on P, who declined an ambulance or medical help. A few hours later, P called the police department to report that he was injured during the encounter. P was diagnosed with a torn rotator cuff. P sued Ds alleging a state-law negligence claim against D for failing to exercise reasonable care in performing his duties and a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 violation. The United States District Court entered summary judgment in their favor on both claims. The court found that the public-duty doctrine shielded D and the City from liability because no special relationship existed. P appealed. The Ninth Circuit certified to this Court the public-duty doctrine question.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.