In White v. Beasley, 453 Mich. 308, 552 N.W.2d 1 (Mich. 1996), neighbors who heard the decedent being attacked called 911 on her behalf. In that case, a divided appellate court considered a claim by a decedent whose neighbors called 911 on her behalf after they saw the victim's husband attack her and heard her cries for help. The responding officers met with the neighbors, but left without knocking on the victim's apartment door or making any other attempt to contact her. Less than three hours later, the victim's husband called 911 to report that he had stabbed his wife, who died three hours and twenty minutes after the first officers had arrived. See White v. Beasley, 453 Mich. 308, 552 N.W.2d 1, 3-4 (Mich. 1996). The majority held that the decedent did not rely on any affirmative action taken by the police, because she never contacted them and "had no knowledge of a promise of help on which she could rely." 552 N.W.2d at 7. The dissent argued that a strict application of the victim reliance requirement "to crimes in progress, . . . leads to an odd unjust result where the victim least able to help himself, that is, least able to change the course of his actions, is the one least able to 'rely' on the police officer's obligation to help him." 552 N.W.2d at 10. The majority rejected the notion that evidence of reliance on a police officer's generalized "obligation to help" is sufficient to establish a special duty. A claim premised solely on the argument that "it was the officer's 'duty' to aid victims of crime . . . . is tantamount to arguing that a tort duty can be established solely on the basis of defendants' job title." 552 N.W.2d at 7. Holding that "the public duty doctrine . . . protects government employees from liability based solely on their job title," the Court "refused to allow the exception to contradict the rule." Id.