Collins v. Hudson

Summary

The Kentucky Supreme Court addressed whether law enforcement officials owed a statutory or common-law duty to warn a police informant that his identity had been disclosed to criminal defense counsel. The court held that the statutory duty under KRS 421.500(4) could not support civil liability because the enacted statute included a no-liability provision that had been mistakenly omitted during codification. It also held that prevailing Kentucky common-law principles did not impose a negligence duty absent a qualifying special relationship, and reinstated the Franklin Circuit Court’s judgment for the defendants.

Holdings

1. No. The no-liability provision enacted as section 9 of the Crime Victims and Witness Protection Act must be read as including KRS 421.500(4), so no civil liability for money damages may be predicated on a violation of that subsection.
2. No. Under Kentucky's prevailing common-law rule, a public official owes no actionable duty to protect a person from third-party violence absent a special relationship in which the victim was in state custody or otherwise restrained by the state and the violence was perpetrated by a state actor.

Questions Presented

1. Whether KRS 421.500(4), as enacted in the Crime Victims and Witness Protection Act, imposed civil liability for failure to provide information concerning protection from intimidation, harassment, and retaliation.
2. Whether the erroneous codification of the Act's no-liability provision could be corrected by reference to the enacted statute and legislative history.
3. Whether Kentucky common law imposed a duty on the law-enforcement officials to warn Pettit that his informant identity had been disclosed and that he might be in danger.
4. Whether the special-relationship rule announced in Fryman v. Harrison was limited to claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 or altered because Pettit was a juvenile.

Disposition

other