> For the complete documentation index, see [llms.txt](https://studies-de-jure.gitbook.io/learn/llms.txt). Markdown versions of documentation pages are available by appending `.md` to page URLs; this page is available as [Markdown](https://studies-de-jure.gitbook.io/learn/primers/reading-briefing/annotated-cases-briefs/example-2-mills-v.-city-of-overland-park/annotated-case-brief-mills-v.-city-of-overland-park.md).

# Annotated Case Brief: Mills v. City of Overland Park

{% hint style="info" %}
**Preliminary Notes and Tips**

In different portions of this "instructional" brief, I have inserted <mark style="color:red;">explanatory context in red</mark> inside a box for parts that might not be self-evident from the case. You can expand the box to see the explanations. These comments are ***not*** part of a case brief; they are merely guidance or tips. Case briefs can take a little practice to become good at.

A few introductory tips: To better understand a case, it is good to do an initial scan of the case to look for a couple of things. (I say, "initial scan," because cases usually need to be read more than once to really understand the important pieces.)

* **First**, you may want (or need) to skip to the end of the case to see the ultimate result.
  * In a given decision, it is common for courts to go back and forth, telling the reader what one party argued and addressing that, and then telling the reader what the other party argued and addressing that. This can be confusing because courts may both agree and disagree with certain points each party makes, leading the reader to think the court is leaning in one direction and then the other. So, it helps to get an idea of who wins **before** you really dig into the case. (This is not a piece of fiction, so waiting until the end to get the answer is unhelpful.)
  * If you skip to the end, courts will usually make a statement that they either affirm or reverse the lower court's decision. Sometimes, courts also make that statement near the beginning, but if not, skip to the end. **If the court says, "affirm," then the respondent wins and the petitioner loses. If the court says, "reverse," then the petitioner wins and the respondent loses.**
* **Second**, before reading the statement of facts that led to the dispute, find the "issue" in the case, which is also referred to as the "question." (And there may be multiple.) Look for these to help you complete the Issue section of the brief. Typically, "issue," "question," or both will be in the opinion; sometimes, the court will use other language about it needs to "decide" or "determine."
* **Third**, although the statement of facts leading to the dispute appears near the beginning of a court's opinion, do not read through them first. Starting with the issue (and sometimes even the Rule as well) can help you identify which facts will turn out to be the facts that will be relevant to the outcome. Frequently, courts go into detail to paint context for the reader, but all of the facts will not be relevant for the case brief. Also, sometimes relevant facts are listed elsewhere in the case (such as in the Analysis) that weren't listed in the statement of facts that appears early in the case. So, be on the lookout for those facts as well. (And if they are identified later in the case, they are most assuredly relevant to the outcome.) **The final version of the facts for the brief should usually be your last step when completing the final version of your brief.**
* **Fourth**, in many opinions, the applicable Rule or Rules (i.e., the legal standards on which the court's analysis are based) are located in a section or sections following the factual background that led to the issue before the court. However, sometimes, they are scattered, depending on how the court is addressing the issues and arguments. In this case, they are essentially separated because the court divides its discussion into different areas of the opinion.
* **Fifth**, the court's Analysis (also known as its rationale or reasoning supporting its holding) follows its explanation of the applicable rules of law. Generally, a court's methodology is the apply the rules governing the dispute to the facts of the case. Sometimes, as is the case here, it is making one or more brand new rules because it hasn't dealt with these issues previously.
  {% endhint %}

## *Mills v. City of Overland Park,* 251 Kan. 434, 837 P.2d 370 (1992)

## **Relevant Facts**

{% hint style="info" %} <mark style="color:red;">**Hint: Remember, what you write here shouldn't be finalized until you have examined both the facts in the statement of facts and additional facts that may pop up during the court's discussion.**</mark>

<mark style="color:red;">**In this case, for example, a major fact in the case was a set of standard operating procedures that applied to officer conduct. This isn't addressed in the court's initial discussion of the facts; it is introduced later. So, when it became obvious that this was a factor in the court's reasoning, I added it to the last part of the brief's summary of relevant facts. (This the part I highlighted in yellow a few paragraphs below to illustrate this.)**</mark>
{% endhint %}

A bar employee escorted Mills from a bar after becoming disruptive. Mills had been drinking heavily. The bar called the police after Mills returned. Mills was cooperative with the police.

The weather was cold, ice was present, and there was a freezing mist. Mills was not wearing warm clothes or a coat. Police told Mills he was free to go, Mills walked into a field, and he was later found frozen to death in a ditch.

Mills’ parents and personal representative filed a wrongful death action against the city and multiple police offers for failing to take Mills into custody to protect him due to his incapacitation and the weather.

<mark style="background-color:yellow;">At the time, the police department had a standard operating procedure (SOP), stating that officers "may take" intoxicated and incapacitated people into custody if a reasonable person would believe the subject was likely to harm himself or others.</mark>

## **Issues(s)**

Was there a violation of a legal duty? Did the officers owe a "special duty" to Mills under the public duty doctrine?

<details>

<summary><mark style="color:red;">The court's framing of the issue</mark></summary>

Courts identify issues in different places in an opinion and in different ways, which is another reason why, pragmatically, briefs shouldn't be drafted while reading a case for the first time. Here, the court waited quite some time to state the issue.

Here is some additional context about the issue, which fundamentally relates to the tort of [negligence](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/negligence). (Negligence is discussed thoroughly in Ch. 3 of the text.) "[Wrongful death](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/wrongful_death_action)" is a civil [cause of action ](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/cause_of_action)that can arise from either an intentional act or negligence (which is unintentional, i.e., accidental).

To properly allege a case of negligence, the plaintiff must certain [elements](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/element): **(1)** allege that a [legal duty of care](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/legal_duty) owed to the plaintiff existed (which can be statutory, common law, or contractual), **(2)** allege that the duty of care was[ breached](#user-content-fn-1)[^1] by the defendant's actions or inactions[^2], and **(3)** that the breach of duty caused harm/damages.

In this case, the court is grappling with whether the duty of care that the plaintiff alleged was actually a legal duty that the officers owed to Mills in these circumstances. Additionally, liability to Mills required that there was a clearly stated and absolute legal obligation to protect Mills' safety (which is called a [ministerial duty to act](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/ministerial_act)). However, if the officers legally had the [discretion ](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/discretionary)to choose whether to protect Mills, then they had no duty to Mills and could not be liable.

</details>

## Holding

{% hint style="info" %} <mark style="color:red;">**A court's holding is the ultimate answer to the issue/question.**</mark>
{% endhint %}

No, there was no violation of a legal duty. Specifically, the officers did not owe Mills a "special duty" to Mills under the public duty doctrine.

## Rules

{% hint style="info" %} <mark style="color:red;">**The rule (or rules) is the law of the case that the court used as the test (basically, a formula) that forms the basis of its analysis to arrive at the holding.**</mark>
{% endhint %}

* For an officer to be liable for a negligent or wrongful act, there must be a duty to act.
* The public duty doctrine provides a governmental entity (or officer) is not liable for torts committed against a person in absence of a special duty owed to the injured party. Officers owe a general duty to the public at large, not to specific individuals. Officers are not liable for the performance or nonperformance of their general duties, such as law enforcement and crime prevention, unless a special relationship exists with the person, such as when a specific duty (i.e., an affirmative duty to act) is owed to the person.
* Unless there is a special duty, police officers are vested with the necessary discretionary authority to act in an appropriate manner to protect the public.

## Analysis

A special duty exists if a policy (e.g., guideline/SOP) states that an officer "will" do something. The term, "will," removes discretion (i.e., there is a specific/affirmative duty) to act; "may" is permissive and grants discretion to act, which does not create a special duty.

Because the relevant policy (e.g., guideline/SOP) did not use language that removed officer discretion ("will") and instead used language granting discretion ("may"), the officers did not owe a special duty to Mills and could exercise discretion in choosing whether to protect Mills from the weather. Thus, the defendants are not liable for a tort.

***

[^1]: i.e., the defendant failed to uphold their duty of care

[^2]: Inactions are also called "omissions."


---

# Agent Instructions
This documentation is published with GitBook. GitBook is the documentation platform designed so that both humans and AI agents can read, navigate, and reason over technical content effectively. Learn more at gitbook.com.

## Querying This Documentation
If you need additional information that is not directly available in this page, you can query the documentation dynamically by asking a question.

Perform an HTTP GET request on the current page URL with the `ask` query parameter:

```
GET https://studies-de-jure.gitbook.io/learn/primers/reading-briefing/annotated-cases-briefs/example-2-mills-v.-city-of-overland-park/annotated-case-brief-mills-v.-city-of-overland-park.md?ask=<question>
```

The question should be specific, self-contained, and written in natural language.
The response will contain a direct answer to the question and relevant excerpts and sources from the documentation.

Use this mechanism when the answer is not explicitly present in the current page, you need clarification or additional context, or you want to retrieve related documentation sections.