Can a police officer be held liable for intentional infliction of emotional distress for failing to intervene or protect a plaintiff?
California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Christensen v. Superior Court, 2 Cal.Rptr.2d 79, 54 Cal.3d 868, 820 P.2d 181 (Cal. 1991):
Davidson v. City of Westminster, supra, 32 Cal.3d 197, 185 Cal.Rptr. 252, 649 P.2d 894, is particularly instructive. There the plaintiff sought damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress based on the conduct of police officers who failed to intervene or protect her when they observed an assault suspect enter the public laundromat; the suspect had stabbed the plaintiff while the defendants had the premises under surveillance. We held that in the absence of an intent on the part of the defendant officers to injure the plaintiff, their conduct was not the kind of extreme and outrageous conduct that would give rise to liability for intentional infliction of emotional distress. (Id. at p. 210, 185 Cal.Rptr. 252, 649 P.2d 894.)
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.
