The “special duty” rule is perhaps one of the thorniest and most confusing areas of tort law. It requires that a municipality, when performing a governmental function, be found to have owed a duty to the injured party greater than whatever obligation it may have had to the public at large in order to be held liable. For example, a person cannot sue a police department purely for failing to protect him from harm by a third party. But, if the police make a specific promise to protect a person, who relies on that promise to his detriment, and they then fail to deliver on it, the municipality may be found to have accepted a special duty and be held liable. See, e.g., Cuffy v. City of New York, 69 N.Y.2d 255 (1987).

Over time, the special duty rule has progressively expanded in scope, making it increasingly difficult to understand what it does and does not cover. This confusion has been enhanced by the fact that, even though the special duty rule has undergone subtle, but perceptible changes, the Court of Appeals has not always been explicit in acknowledging as much.