Pace Ex Rel. Pace v. State
38 A.3d 418
Md.2012Background
- Pace sued the State of Maryland claiming NSLA created a duty to protect her 5-year-old daughter Liana from peanut exposure in school lunches.
- Liana suffered an anaphylactic reaction after being served a peanut butter sandwich at Hillcrest Elementary during a subsidized NSLA lunch.
- A pre-measured epinephrine dose had been provided by Liana's allergist to the school nurse prior to the incident.
- The State defendants moved to dismiss, arguing NSLA does not impose a specific duty and that the State’s role is limited to reimbursement and monitoring.
- The circuit court dismissed; the Court of Special Appeals affirmed, and this Court granted certiorari to resolve whether NSLA creates a private duty or only a public duty.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does NSLA create a duty to individual students with allergies? | Pace argues NSLA imposes an independent duty to tailor meals to individual needs. | Pace states NSLA creates a special duty; State contends it serves the public, not individuals. | NSLA does not create a private duty to individuals. |
| Is there a statutory special relationship giving rise to a duty? | Pace relies on NSLA provisions to show a special duty to Liana. | No special relationship; duty extends only to the public under public duty doctrine. | No special duty; public duty doctrine applies. |
| Do NSLA regulations create any mandatory action by the State to protect allergic students? | Petitioner points to regulations as creating a state duty to prevent exposure. | Regulations are not mandatory for the state to act toward individuals. | Regulations do not impose a statutory duty on the State to protect individual allergy cases. |
Key Cases Cited
- Horridge v. St. Mary's County Department of Social Services, 382 Md. 170, 854 A.2d 1232 (Md. 2004) (special duty to protect a specific class of children may arise from statute)
- Pendleton v. State, 398 Md. 447, 921 A.2d 196 (Md. 2007) (public welfare services generally do not create duty to an identifiable child)
- Ashburn v. Anne Arundel County, 306 Md. 617, 510 A.2d 1078 (Md. 1986) (public duty doctrine; police owe no individual duty absent special relation)
- Muthukumarana v. Montgomery County, 370 Md. 447, 805 A.2d 372 (Md. 2002) (public duty doctrine; statutory duties to general public do not automatically create private duties)
- Pulliam v. Motor Vehicle Administration, 181 Md. App. 144, 955 A.2d 843 (Md. App. 2008) (statutory duties to the public cannot create private liability absent specific words creating individual duty)
- Turner v. Kight, 406 Md. 167, 957 A.2d 984 (Md. 2008) (statutory interpretation; follow plain language unless ambiguity or absurd result)