Whether the New York City Police Department Patrol Guide is a body of law or regulation establishing clear legal duties that should serve as a basis for civil liability in suits by police officers or families of deceased officers against a municipality.

No. Public policy dictates that such an internal manual cannot be the basis for civil liability because it does not establish clear legal duties and is not part of a duly-enacted body of law or regulation.

Joseph Galapo, a police officer, was killed in the line of duty when his partner's gun accidentally discharged during a scuffle with a suspect. The Police Department's Firearm Discharge Review Board investigated the accident and found that the discharge was accidental and not in violation of the Department's Guidelines. Galapo's family, however, sued his partner, William Martin, the New York City Police Department, and the city for wrongful death. As grounds for the claim, Plaintiffs alleged that the discharge was a violation of procedure 104-1(k) of the Police Department Patrol Guide, which regulates the handling of guns to avoid unintended discharge. The trial court dismissed the suit based on a common law rule barring police officers from recovery for on-the-job, work-related injuries. The Appellate Division reversed and the Galapos were awarded $17.9 million after trial.

Defendants moved to set aside the verdict but the motion was denied. On appeal, the Appellate Division determined that new decisions by the Court of Appeals had served to overrule its prior determination, and therefore reversed. Plaintiffs appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed.

Plaintiffs based their cause of action on General Municipal Law § 205-e, which affords police officers and their surviving families a statutory cause of action for line-of-duty injuries resulting from negligent noncompliance with any statutes, ordinances, rules, orders, or requirements. The Court held, however, that § 205-e does not allow for recovery for noncompliance with internal governmental requirements. Rather, a police officer must prove that an injury was the result of negligent noncompliance with a duly-enacted law or regulation. The Court ruled that the Patrol Guide was not a body of law, but merely an internal manual that did not provide a basis for civil liability.

The Court advanced three policy reasons in support of this conclusion. First, it noted that a determination that an internal manual could establish liability would dissuade departments from creating internal rules. Second, it reasoned that such a ruling would allow the courts to determine what constitutes proper action in the line of duty. Finally, it concluded that the purpose of the statute would be thwarted if the courts allowed police officers to sue each other. This, according to the Court, was never intended by the legislature. The verdict was therefore set aside.

Judges Smith and Wesley dissented, arguing that the very purpose of General Municipal Law § 205-e was to prevent accidents such as the one that caused Galapo's death. According to the dissent, the Police Department Patrol Guide was sufficiently clear and unequivocal that a trier of fact would not need to exercise any judgment. Lastly, the dissent asserted that since the language of § 205-e was all-encompassing, it included nothing that prevented it from incorporating a department's internal rules, such as the Patrol Guide.