(A) is correct.

Issue: Whether the off-duty police officer owed a duty of care to the young boy, i.e. a duty to rescue him.

Rule: Generally, there is no duty to come to the aid of another person who is in danger absent some special relationship  or  statutory  duty. That the defendant was an officer does not  change  this rule. An officer has a duty to perform his job in a reasonable manner, but the general rules regarding duty to act remain applicable.

Analysis: Here,  the  police  officer  did  not  create  the  child’s  peril  and  he  was  not  in  a  special  relationship  with  the  child  (e.g.,  common  carrier  to  passenger  or  innkeeper  to  guest)  nor  was  there  any  statutory  duty  imposed  upon  him to  protect  the  child. Note that  even  if  the  police  officer  was  not  on  vacation,  but  rather  on-call,  he  would  have  no  duty  to  prevent  the  child’s  injury since this is not within his job responsibilities.

(A) is correct because the officer owed no duty to rescue the child.

(B) is  incorrect because  this  is  an  issue  of  fact  and  it  does  not  address  the  legal  issue  posed here  which  is  whether  an  off-duty  police  officer  owed  a  duty  to  the  child  to  rescue  him. Be careful to make sure the answer choice matches the legal issue posed by the question.

(C) is incorrect because the facts do not indicate that the child relied on the police officer.  It is true that in a special relationship,  if there is a justifiable reliance upon the relationship, a failure to act (nonfeasance) can be a breach. However, there is no evidence of any relationship formed whatsoever between the officer and the child under these facts.

(D) is incorrect because proximate cause is irrelevant if there is no duty in the first place. A proximate cause of an injury is a cause which, in natural and continuous sequence, produces the injury,  and  without  which  the  injury  would  not  have  occurred. Here, there may indeed  be  proximate cause, but without a duty to act, the officer cannot be liable to plaintiff.