public duty doctrine in Maryland

2025“As such, under the public duty doctrine, law enforcement 20 ‘officers ordinarily may not be held liable for failure to protect specific persons because they owe no duty, as the first element of a negligence action[] requires, to those individuals.’” Cooper v. Rodriguez, 443 Md. 680 , 714–15 (2015) (quoting Muthukumarana, 370 Md. at 486–87).

2025See, e.g., Cooper, 443 Md. at 714–15 (discussing the public duty doctrine and the special relationship exception); Jones v. State, 425 Md. 1 , 21–22 (2012) (stating that “[w]e have recognized the policy undergirding the public duty doctrine and applied the doctrine in a number of cases” and discussing several of them); Muthukumarana, 370 Md. at 486–87 (discussing the public duty doctrine and the special relationship exception).

2015Rather, in Williams, 359 Md. at 144 , 753 A.2d at 64 , we held that the presence of a special relationship is an exception to immunity under the public duty doctrine.

2015Rather, in Williams, 359 Md. at 144 , 753 A.2d at 64 , we held that the presence of a special relationship is an exception to immunity under the public duty doctrine.

2025This Court recognized and applied the public duty doctrine in a similar manner in Ashburn v. Anne Arundel County. 306 Md. at 628 .

2018The seminal case applying the public duty doctrine is Ashburn v. Anne Arundel County , 306 Md. 617 , 510 A.2d 1078 (1986).

2025“As such, under the public duty doctrine, law enforcement 20 ‘officers ordinarily may not be held liable for failure to protect specific persons because they owe no duty, as the first element of a negligence action[] requires, to those individuals.’” Cooper v. Rodriguez, 443 Md. 680 , 714–15 (2015) (quoting Muthukumarana, 370 Md. at 486–87).

2025See, e.g., Cooper, 443 Md. at 714–15 (discussing the public duty doctrine and the special relationship exception); Jones v. State, 425 Md. 1 , 21–22 (2012) (stating that “[w]e have recognized the policy undergirding the public duty doctrine and applied the doctrine in a number of cases” and discussing several of them); Muthukumarana, 370 Md. at 486–87 (discussing the public duty doctrine and the special relationship exception).

2012The public duty doctrine, therefore, has no relevance to this case.”); Bates v. Doria, 150 Ill.App.3d 1025 , 104 Ill.Dec. 191 , 502 N.E.2d 454, 458 (1986) (“The public duty doctrine is inapplicable to the present case where plaintiff seeks to impose liability based upon the defendants’ negligent employment of a law enforcement officer [who allegedly raped and assaulted the plaintiff], not upon defendants’ failure to prevent the commission of crimes.”).

2012The public duty doctrine, therefore, has no relevance to this case.”); Bates v. Doria, 150 Ill.App.3d 1025 , 104 Ill.Dec. 191 , 502 N.E.2d 454, 458 (1986) (“The public duty doctrine is inapplicable to the present case where plaintiff seeks to impose liability based upon the defendants’ negligent employment of a law enforcement officer [who allegedly raped and assaulted the plaintiff], not upon defendants’ failure to prevent the commission of crimes.”).

2012Liser v. Smith, 254 F.Supp.2d 89, 102 (D.D.C.2003) (“[The public duty doctrine] is wholly inapposite in a case such as this, where the alleged harm was brought about directly by the officers themselves, and where there is no allegation of a failure to protect.

2011See, e.g., Liser v. Smith, 254 F.Supp.2d 89, 102 (D.D.C.2003) (“The claim that the government has no general duty to protect particular citizens from injury is simply a non-sequitur where the government itself is solely responsible for that injury, which it has caused by the allegedly negligent use of its own police powers.”); Bates v. Doria, 150 Ill.App.3d 1025 , 104 Ill.Dec. 191 , 502 N.E.2d 454, 458 (1986) (public duty doctrine inapplicable to case “where plaintiff seeks to impose liability based upon the defendants’ negligent employment of a law-enforcement officer, not upon defendants’ fa

2011The Court further explained: Furthermore, [the public duty doctrine] acknowledges that “a policy which places a duty on a police officer to insure the safety of each member of the community would create an unnecessary burden on the judicial system.” As the Dis *666 trict of Columbia Court of Appeals explained [in Morgan v. District of Columbia, 468 A.2d 1306, 1311 (D.C.1983) ], the application of the public duty doctrine to police officers recognizes that “juries and courts are ill-equipped to judge ‘considered legislative-executive decisions’ as to how particular community resources should be

2011The Court further explained: Furthermore, [the public duty doctrine] acknowledges that “a policy which places a duty on a police officer to insure the safety of each member of the community would create an unnecessary burden on the judicial system.” As the Dis *666 trict of Columbia Court of Appeals explained [in Morgan v. District of Columbia, 468 A.2d 1306, 1311 (D.C.1983) ], the application of the public duty doctrine to police officers recognizes that “juries and courts are ill-equipped to judge ‘considered legislative-executive decisions’ as to how particular community resources should be

2025“A frequently cited example is that ‘the duty owed by the police by virtue of their positions as officers is a duty to protect the public,’ and is thereby not enforceable in tort by a member of the public claiming that the police failed to protect them, specifically.” Pace, 425 Md. at 157 (quoting Ashburn, 306 Md. at 628 ) (citation modified).

2015See also Pace v. State, 425 Md. 145, 157 , 38 A.3d 418, 425 (2012) (“A frequently cited example is that the duty owed by [law enforcement] by virtue of their positions as officers is a duty to protect the public, and is thereby not enforceable in tort by a member of the public claiming that [law enforcement] failed to protect [that person], specifically.” (Citations and internal quotation marks omitted)).

2021See Muthukumarana v. Montgomery Cnty., 370 Md. 447, 486 (2002).22 Under this doctrine, “absent a special relationship between a [municipal employee and a member of the public needing public services], an employee does not owe such an individual a private duty in tort.” Id. at 486 . 22 The circuit court was brief in its analysis of this point, simply saying: “[T]here is insufficient evidence upon which the jury could reasonably find Defendants Buchanan and Mackall owed Plaintiff a special duty to ensure the proper and correct information was used for the 2013 Arrest Warrant.” It also reasoned t

2002Moreover, when Vanessa's grandmother reached a 911 operator, assistance was immediately dispatched to the correct address." [11] While acknowledging that the Court of Special Appeals' use of "specific reliance" under the public duty test to mean "detrimental and justifiable reliance," consistent with the holdings of courts in other jurisdictions, Fried, 139 Md.App. at 265-66 , 775 A.2d at 451 , the majority did not adopt that definition, choosing instead, "to retain a more general special relationship test to preserve our case-by-case analytical approach to these issues" and to note "that thos

2025The United States Supreme Court discussed what has since come to be known as the public duty doctrine in South v. Maryland, 59 U.S. 396, 402 (1855).

2021See, e.g., Howard, 239 Md.

2015Reg’l Jail & *720 Com Facility Auth. v. A.B., 234 W.Va. 492 , 766 S.E.2d 751, 776-77 (2014), the Supreme Court of West Virginia stated: [T]he special relationship or special duty doctrine is an exception to the liability defense known as the public duty doctrine; it is neither an immunity concept, nor a standalone basis of liability.

2015Reg’l Jail & *720 Com Facility Auth. v. A.B., 234 W.Va. 492 , 766 S.E.2d 751, 776-77 (2014), the Supreme Court of West Virginia stated: [T]he special relationship or special duty doctrine is an exception to the liability defense known as the public duty doctrine; it is neither an immunity concept, nor a standalone basis of liability.

2012E.g., McNack, 398 Md. at 403 , 920 A.2d at 1111 (holding that neither the State nor Baltimore City was liable for failure to protect plaintiff from drug dealers firebombing plaintiffs home because no special relationship existed between the State, or the City, and the plaintiff, and, thus, the public duty doctrine applied); Muthukumarana, 370 Md. at 490 , 805 A.2d at 397 (holding that allegedly-negligent 911 employees were not liable to victims who had contacted them, including the family of a young girl killed by her friends and a woman whose husband shot her and her children, because “it [wa

2012E.g., McNack, 398 Md. at 403 , 920 A.2d at 1111 (holding that neither the State nor Baltimore City was liable for failure to protect plaintiff from drug dealers firebombing plaintiffs home because no special relationship existed between the State, or the City, and the plaintiff, and, thus, the public duty doctrine applied); Muthukumarana, 370 Md. at 490 , 805 A.2d at 397 (holding that allegedly-negligent 911 employees were not liable to victims who had contacted them, including the family of a young girl killed by her friends and a woman whose husband shot her and her children, because “it [wa

2012E.g., McNack, 398 Md. at 403 , 920 A.2d at 1111 (holding that neither the State nor Baltimore City was liable for failure to protect plaintiff from drug dealers firebombing plaintiffs home because no special relationship existed between the State, or the City, and the plaintiff, and, thus, the public duty doctrine applied); Muthukumarana, 370 Md. at 490 , 805 A.2d at 397 (holding that allegedly-negligent 911 employees were not liable to victims who had contacted them, including the family of a young girl killed by her friends and a woman whose husband shot her and her children, because “it [wa

2012E.g., McNack, 398 Md. at 403 , 920 A.2d at 1111 (holding that neither the State nor Baltimore City was liable for failure to protect plaintiff from drug dealers firebombing plaintiffs home because no special relationship existed between the State, or the City, and the plaintiff, and, thus, the public duty doctrine applied); Muthukumarana, 370 Md. at 490 , 805 A.2d at 397 (holding that allegedly-negligent 911 employees were not liable to victims who had contacted them, including the family of a young girl killed by her friends and a woman whose husband shot her and her children, because “it [wa