Officer X, a police officer, violated a court order by refusing to arrest Y, a husband against whom a restraining order had been issued by the court. Officer X's refusal resulted in serious injury to Y's wife and daughter. A case is brought against Officer X alleging a violation of Section 1983 and a violation of state tort law.

Being liable means you are responsible to act in a certain way under a specific law, and therefore, breaking a law has legal consequences for you.

In countries, such as the United States where there are federal and state laws, liability for each of these might vary.

In the case presented the officer is liable under the Kansas state tort law but not under the federal law. Here are the reasons:

Kansas state tort law: This law states government entities and their employees are responsible for omission or wrongful acts. This applies to the police officer because as an employee of the Kansas police he did not act based on protocols and this caused damage.
Section 1983: This allows individuals to sue employees from government entities in cases these employees went beyond the boundaries of their authority. This does not apply to the officer because the problem was omission rather than going beyond his authority.

Note: This question is incomplete; here is the missing section.

A case is brought against Officer X alleging a violation of Section 1983 (federal law) and a violation of Kansas state tort law. Will Officer X be liable under one or both of these laws?

Learn more in: https://brainly.com/question/22979337