Fusilier V. Russell Case Study

In 1977 Fusilier v. Russell dealt with intoxicated drivers and the police failure to arrest. The plaintiff brought criminal action against two Louisiana Sheriffs for failure to arrest or restrain an intoxicated driver. The subject had later become involved in a motor vehicle accident that left the victim/plaintiff severely burned. Prior to the accident deputy sheriffs were responding to a call from a nightclub where they were to evict a disorderly customer. When the officers arrived they noticed an intoxicated person in the parking lot. Although the officers saw the subject staggering in the parking lot for several minutes, they did not take the individual into custody. Without the officers’ knowledge, the subject left the parking lot in a motor vehicle. The officers left the nightclub and about ten minutes later they came upon two vehicles on fire. The drunk driver had struck the plaintiffs vehicle, causing a serious accident. The trial court dismissed the plaintiff’s action against the sheriff and his deputies. On appeal, the Court of Appeals of Louisiana affirmed the dismissal, holding that the duty to arrest is a duty owed to the general public and that a special relationship was absent. The court sympathized with the officers’ dilemma and cited Justice warren’s remarks in Pierson v. Ray. I both agree and disagree with the way the court decided this case. …show more content…
I agree that there was not a special relationship present between the officers and the drunk driver. It would have been different if that as the same person who the officers had to escort out of the nigh club. There was no contact with the subject nor was the subject a child. Children always have a special relationship. The public duty doctrine states that a governmental entity cannot be held liable for an individual plaintiff’s injury resulting from a governmental officer’s breach of duty owed to the general public rather than to the plaintiff. The officers at the nigh club had no way of knowing that the subject in the parking lot would get behind the wheel. They did not owe the duty to arrest to the general public. In the parking lot the subject could have been cooling off, getting sick, waiting for a ride, smoking, or waiting for the rest of his or her friends to leave and take them home. The officers had no way of knowing what the subject was doing. Ministerial functions are not open for discussion and there is only one right answer. Discretionary functions are open to discussion. Officers pick the more reasonable choice from a list and cannot be held liable if the wrong one is picked. Currently in the United States arresting an intoxicated person is a discretionary function. I believe that if a person is seen intoxicated in public and alone officers should have to approach the person. If the person can give them a name and phone number of a person to call the officer should call and wait until a ride picks them up. The officer could give the person a ride home in the case no one could be contacted. And if all else fails the intoxicated person should be taken to the police station and put into the drunk tank. The drunk tank will given them time to sober up in a safe, secure