PDD.70: The Sophisticated User Doctrine

I've mentioned in the past (12-9-2009) that I thought the criminal justice system might in the future claim, if sued for failure to protect, that the average citizen should have known that the state has no legal duty to protect; in other words, that average citizens should have known of The Public Duty Doctrine by way of their civic sophistication or common sense.

The Sophisticated User Doctrine generally involves product liability. However, you will probably see the government claim this in future defenses in conjunction with The Public Duty Doctrine.

Consider this: http://www.allbusiness.com/manufacturing/fabricated-metal-product-manufacturing/1038734-1.html

Now, consider the case of Warren v. District of Columbia (1981): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia

So, if a case like Warren v. Dist. of Columbia were to be heard in the future, the court's rationale might evolve into the following:

1. The District of Columbia police had no legal duty to protect; they cannot be held legally liable for failure to protect because there was no legal duty to protect in the first place, ie The Public Duty Doctrine.

2. And, furthermore, the Plaintiffs (victims) should have known of The Public Duty Doctrine because of The Sophisticated User Doctrine, and, therefore, taken the necessary steps to protect themselves absent police protection.

3. The State may go so far as claim "The Open and Obvious Danger Doctrine," meaning that when a victim risks calling 911, instead of immediately taking the necessary steps to protective themselves first, that this was an open and obvious danger and liability is, therefore, a non-issue. Now, this doctrine generally involves property/land issues (trip-and-fall/injury cases). But consider this, as well, as something that might evolve into the above defenses. http://definitions.uslegal.com/o/open-and-obvious-doctrine/

The problem with the State using this defense (SUD) is that there is no evidence that the public is knowledgeable of the Public Duty Doctrine, no curriculums in schools, no public service announcements, zip. In other words, the public is unsophisticated pertaining to such matters. However, they are very savy about dialing 911, if in trouble. The problem is: the public's expectations are at odds with law enforcement's legal duty, which is not to protect and serve but to maintain law and order; the victim, in the eyes of the law, is not a victim but a witness for the State -- period.

I have no doubt that at some point the State will use The Sophisticated User Doctrine, regardless of the public's lack of civic/legal sophistication. It will be much like "doublespeak" in the book "1984" or "Alice Through The Looking Glass" where everything, including rules of behavior, are upsidedown or backwards.

Welcome to Wanesville!!!!