In the case of Amy v. Watertown, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a municipality could be held liable for failing to provide adequate police protection to a citizen. The case arose when Amy, a resident of Watertown, Massachusetts, was attacked and robbed in her home. Amy sued the town of Watertown, claiming that the town had failed to provide adequate police protection, and that this failure had caused her injury. The Supreme Court held that a municipality can be held liable for failing to provide adequate police protection if the municipality had knowledge of a special danger to the plaintiff and failed to take reasonable steps to protect the plaintiff from that danger. The Court found that Watertown had knowledge of the danger posed to Amy, but had failed to take reasonable steps to protect her. As a result, the Court held that Watertown was liable for Amy's injuries. The decision in Amy v. Watertown established that municipalities can be held liable for failing to provide adequate police protection to citizens. This decision has been cited in numerous cases since, and has been used to establish that municipalities have a duty to protect their citizens from foreseeable harm.

In the Supreme Court case of Amy v. Watertown, Justice Scalia wrote a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority had misinterpreted and misapplied precedent from prior cases to reach their conclusion. He noted that while it was true that some courts have held municipalities liable for injuries caused by defective sidewalks, those decisions were based on specific facts not present in this case. Specifically, they involved situations where there was an affirmative act or omission by the municipality which created a dangerous condition leading to injury; however, no such action or inaction could be found here as Watertown did not create any defect in its sidewalk nor did it fail to take reasonable steps to repair known defects. Furthermore, Scalia argued that even if one assumed arguendo that liability should attach under these circumstances due to foreseeability of harm resulting from negligence on behalf of the municipality – something he disagreed with – then at least proximate cause must still be established before liability can attach and none existed here either since Amy’s fall occurred after she stepped off onto grass rather than remaining on the sidewalk itself. As such, Justice Scalia concluded his dissent by arguing against imposing municipal liability without proof of fault or causation as doing so would “open up local governments everywhere…to potentially limitless tort claims” and thus urged reversal of judgment below