What determines if there was a breach of duty under public duty doctrine?

The public duty doctrine establishes that government entities, including law enforcement officers, have a duty to serve the public and protect community interests. However, determining a breach of that duty involves understanding multiple relevant factors, which is why the correct answer encompasses all the provided criteria.

First, an officer acting negligently can demonstrate a breach of duty. Negligence implies that the officer failed to act as a reasonably prudent officer would under similar circumstances, thus violating their duty to the public.

Next, the presence of actual damages is also critical. Even if there was a breach of duty by the officer, if no actual harm or damage occurred as a result, the legal claim may not be actionable. Actual damages serve as a key element in establishing liability.

Lastly, there must be an established duty owed to the individual or group claiming a breach. Without a recognized duty, there can be no basis for claiming a breach under the public duty doctrine.

By incorporating the officer's negligence, the existence of actual damages, and the requisite duty owed, the comprehensive picture is formed to assess a breach of duty under the public duty doctrine accurately. This multidimensional approach helps ensure that claims are evaluated fairly and in accordance with established legal principles.