Legal Definitions - danger-creation doctrine

The danger-creation doctrine is a legal principle that can hold a government entity responsible for harm inflicted upon an individual by a third party. This doctrine applies when the government's own direct actions or policies actively create or substantially increase a specific danger to that individual, which then leads to the harm. It serves as an exception to the general rule that government entities are typically not liable for injuries caused by private individuals.

Here are some examples illustrating the danger-creation doctrine:

• Example 1: Police Informant Exposure

  A police department recruits an individual to infiltrate a dangerous criminal gang, promising round-the-clock protection. After the informant provides crucial information, the department, without warning, abruptly withdraws all protection and publicly leaks the informant's identity to the gang. The gang then retaliates and harms the informant.

  This illustrates the danger-creation doctrine because the police department's affirmative actions—first recruiting and promising protection, then actively withdrawing it and publicly exposing the informant—directly created and escalated the specific danger to the informant from the third-party gang, leading to the harm.

• Example 2: School Bus Route Elimination

  A municipal transportation authority, due to budget cuts, eliminates a school bus route that served a particular neighborhood, forcing all children from that area to walk through a known, high-crime industrial zone to get to school. A child from that neighborhood is subsequently assaulted by an unknown individual in that industrial zone while walking home.

  Here, the municipal authority's affirmative decision to eliminate the bus route directly created a new, specific danger by compelling the children to traverse a known hazardous environment, which then led to harm inflicted by a third party.

• Example 3: Prison Security Removal

  A state correctional facility, as part of a new "behavior modification" program, intentionally removes all security cameras and guard patrols from a specific wing known to house inmates with a history of violence, believing it will encourage self-regulation. Shortly after, an inmate in that wing is severely assaulted by another inmate.

  This example demonstrates the doctrine because the correctional facility's affirmative action of intentionally removing established security measures in a known high-risk area directly created a heightened and specific danger for the inmates in that wing, leading to harm from a third-party inmate.