PDD.111: Virginia

http://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/psyc/Delk_v_Columbia-Healthcare_brief.htm

PDD.110: California

http://www.zimbio.com/Current+News+Events+by+Marc+Chamot+NEW/articles/566/Judge+Peter+Busch+says+state+no+duty+protect

PDD.109: The U.S. Army

A child is dead. http://www.kitv.com/news/22960722/detail.html

PDD.108: New York

Consider the case of Riss vs. New York City http://www.audiocasefiles.com/acf_cases/10107-riss-v-new-york

and.....http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/21/nyregion/citypeople-a-sort-of-love-story.html

PDD.107: Colorado

Consider the case of Castle Rock vs. Gonzales http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Rock_v._Gonzales

PDD.106: District of Columbia

Consider the case of Warren vs. District of Columbia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lb3rAglRsqU

PDD.105: Wisconsin

Consider the case of DeShaney vs. Winnebago County http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeShaney_v._Winnebago_County

PDD.104: Maryland

Consider the case of Yvonne Boughter et al. vs. Town of Ocean City Maryland Department of Emergency Services Fire/EMS et al.
http://www.onpointnews.com/docs/paramedics_MD.pdf

Family staying in motel. During the night, family extremely sick. The call to 9-1-1. No response. Husband and child dies.

PDD.103: Kansas

Consider the case of Lovitt vs. Board of Shawnee County Commissioners, wherein "Dispatcher Protected By Public Duty Doctrine," http://www.kscoplaw.com/other/lb10-01.htm

I bet that young child learned a bitter lesson by calling 9-1-1. The reflex to call 9-1-1 will be tempered with a Plan B from here on.

Also consider the following: http://www.kansascity.com/2010/05/15/1948671/social-worker-had-no-duty-to-protect.html

PDD.102: Louisianna

Consider the case of Winstead v. Ed's Live Catfish & Seafood, Inc. 554 So. 2d 1237 (La. App. 1 Cir. 1989), which is linked here: http://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/food/winstead.htm.

It is a "failure to disclose case," involving the eating of raw oysters. That's right -- oysters.

This case goes to the very heart of what I have been writing about for almost a year now.

Scroll down to item [75], and read that one paragraph. For your convenience, I will write most of it here:

[75]"... The fact that the DHHR [Louisianna Department of Health and Human Resources] chose not to aggressively disseminate the information contained in the Monthly Morbidity Report to the general public does not constitute a breach of duty to warn. Since this bacteria only attacks a small percentage of the population...the DHHR was reasonable in its conclusion that the best way to warn these people was through the medical community. The Monthly Morbidity Report was sent to every physician in Louisianna, the Center of Disease Control in Atlanta, Georgia, and the health departments of several states, including Mississippi. We hold that this satisfied the duty to warn incumbent on the DHHR due to its specialized knowledge and position of public trust."

By highlighting this case, my point is that, based on this rationale rape victims, for example, which represent a "small percentage of the population," don't need to be warned of The Public Duty Doctrine, which is that government and its agents (law enforcement and district attorneys) have no legal duty to protect; they cannot be held legally liable for failing to protect because there was no legal duty to protect in the first place.

Here, the state claims that they have "no legal duty to warn" because victims represent small numbers. If there was a warning, it was in fine print, a needle in a haystack.

PDD.101: Montana

This one makes you want to spit, cuss, and............ well, you read it: http://www.hollandharthealthcare.com/healthcare/2008/11/montana-medical-examiners-exculpated.html

PDD.100: Victim Advocates?

The following is an example of a victim-rights' website: http://aaa-selfdefense.com/the-victims-constitutional-right-to-reasonable-protection-from-revictimization-by-the-accused#respond

In the above, is there any reference to the victim hiring an attorney to protect his/her rights, due to the fact that the district attorney and investigating detective represent the state and not the victim?

Check out "Home" on the above site.

Type in "Public Duty Doctrine" on "Search this website."

The Public Duty Doctrine should be the foundation or cornerstone for advocating self-defense. However, there is only one paltry, vague, ambiguous reference to the doctrine in this website.

You should want to know why, on what grounds, self-defense should be in the forefront of everyone's mind.

PDD.99: North Carolina

http://nclawreview.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/Punger.wptd_.pdf

"... the greater good...," Mr. Punger, would be to disclose this law to the public in a public way beforehand.

The public learns of the Public Duty Doctrine only after they have been harmed, and then the State whips out this doctrine to defend itself. Looks like an ambush to me.

Mr. Punger, give me the name of one high school in this state that discloses this doctrine to its students, either specifically or generally. One. Just one.

The Public Duty Doctrine.98: Iowa

I referred recently to The Public Duty Doctrine in Ohio and Washington State. Now, it's Iowa's turn.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=ia&vol=app%5C20060301%5C05-1103&invol=1

PDD.97: G. Braxton Price, Esq.

G. Braxton Price is a North Carolina Attorney http://www.hunterandprice.com/Attorney-Profile/G-B-Price.shtml.

In the Campbell Law Review, he wrote: "Inevitable Inequities:" The Public Duty Doctrine and Sovereign Immunity in North Carolina. http://law.campbell.edu/lawreview/articles/28-2-271.pdf

Scroll down to page 282, under the section and first paragraph of The Duty of Care, in which Mr. Price states:

"The concept of '[a] duty to all is a duty to none' is inherently illogical. If the government has a duty to the public, it also has a duty to the individual who makes up the public, because the mythical personality the law calls 'the public' cannot bring suit in order to be made whole or to hold government accountable. Only individuals can do this."

PDD.96: Test Tomorrow

Tomorrow, May 3, 2010, all across America, high school students will be taking the Advanced Placement United States Government and Politics test.

http://www.collegeboard.com/student/testing/ap/about.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Placement_United_States_Government_and_Politics

I can't wait to review the questions. Any bets on whether The Public Duty Doctrine will be mentioned either specifically or generally?