The Appellate Division, First Department recently granted a motion for leave to appeal to the New York Court of Appeals in Laratro v. City of New York. In Laratro, the plaintiff Richard Laratro suffered a stroke at work and his coworker/friend called 911 and told the police communication technician about Laratro's symptoms. The plaintiffs alleged that the coworker/friend relied upon the assurances that an ambulance would be sent "as soon as possible," and decided to wait rather than transport Laratro herself to the hospital. An ambulance arrived over an hour after the coworker/friend called 911.
Laratro concerns the application of the "special relationship" exception to the general rule that, as a matter of policy, municipalities will not be held liable for negligence in performing governmental functions. The elements of the "special relationship" required for a municipality to be held liable for its negligent failure in the performance of services are: (1) an assumption by the municipality, through promises or actions of an affirmative duty to act on behalf of the party who was injured; (2) knowledge on the part of the municipality's agents that inaction could lead to harm; (3) some form of direct contact between the municipality's agents and the injured party; and (4) that party's justifiable reliance on the municipality's affirmative undertaking. This appeal concerns the applicability of the third and forth elements.
The First Department did not rule out that a friend could satisfy the "direct contact" element of the special relationship analysis. It observed: "In the face of the allegations, we cannot categorically state, as a matter of law, that [the coworker/friend's] relationship with Laratro was not close enough to qualify her contact with emergency services on his behalf as direct contact by plaintiff. The First Department also determined that an issue of fact existed on whether the coworker/friend, acting in Laratro's interest and on his behalf, was lulled into a sense of security that the paramedics would be there shortly to help, instead of taking affirmative steps herself to get him help.
Justice Marlow dissented, observing that any expansion of the narrow "special relationship" exception should be left to the Court of Appeals or the Legislature. He warned that the Majority's decision significantly increased liability exposure to municipalities that will ensue from enlarging the class of persons who may claim a "special relationship" with a municipality.
The Court of Appeals will soon determine whether the class of persons may include, under certain circumstances, a close friend or coworker. New York Civil Law will keep you apprised of the case.
Comments