45 A.3d 889
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2012Background
- Fifteen-year-old Dominick Dixon was murdered in 2006; appellants sue the State for negligence related to Crosby’s supervision after his release.
- Crosby was released on mandatory supervision in 2004, later arrested for violations, and ultimately returned to custody; his supervision history is central.
- DPP supervised Crosby with numerous lapses: failed home verifications, missed face-to-face visits, and incomplete therapy participation.
- Crosby’s supervised address and whereabouts allegedly shifted to locations not verified by DPP; the State did not timely retake or monitor accordingly.
- Dominick Dixon’s death occurred in Washington, D.C.; Crosby confessed but was acquitted at trial; the State conceded Crosby killed Dixon for purposes of appeal.
- The circuit court granted the State summary judgment, holding no tort duty existed; appellants appeal this duty determination.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the State owed a tort duty to protect Dixon from Crosby | Dixon argues a duty exists via statutory or common law relations | State contends no duty to the public or appellants under Lamb and related law | No duty; State owed no tort duty to appellants |
Key Cases Cited
- Lamb v. Hopkins, 303 Md. 236 (1985) (no duty to protect the public absent custodial relationship)
- Ashburn v. Anne Arundel County, 306 Md. 617 (1986) (no duty to control third person absent special relation)
- Remsburg v. Montgomery County, 376 Md. 568 (2003) (statutory duty considerations and public protection)
- Pendleton v. State, 398 Md. 447 (2007) (duty essential to negligence; no duty here)
- Secretary of Pub. Safety & Correctional Servs. v. Hutchinson, 359 Md. 320 (2000) (custodial framework restricting duty to supervise post-release)