State v. Jones
14 A.3d 1223
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2011Background
- Ms. Jones sued Deputies Falby and Henderson and the State for negligent retention, supervision, and training after a 2006 arrest-warrant service at Jones's apartment
- A first trial found Deputy Falby liable for battery; the State admitted direct liability for that tort and the court stayed entry of judgment pending Counts I-X
- In a second trial, a jury awarded Jones $261,000 for negligent retention/supervision/training, later capped at $200,000 under MTCA
- The circuit court denied the State’s motions for judgment and JNOV and Jones cross-appealed on MTCA cap and separation-of-powers issues
- The Court of Special Appeals reversed, holding the circuit court should have granted judgment for the State on negligent retention and training due to lack of breach evidence, and to sever/negotiate damages
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Duty owed to Jones for negligent retention | Jones asserts the State owed a duty to her personally (not just to the public) and that a special relationship or public duty exception applies | State argues no duty to Jones individually; public duty doctrine shields liability | Court did not need to decide duty; nonetheless, Jones failed to prove breach |
| Breach of duty for negligent retention | Jones presented evidence of prior incidents and notice as breach evidence | State contends no evidence of incompetence or knowledge establishing breach | Jones failed to show the deputies were unfit or that the State knew of incompetence; trial court should have granted judgment for State on this claim |
| Breach of duty for negligent training and supervision | Jones argues the deputies were trained improperly (e.g., door entry and excessive force) and inappropriately supervised | State contends there was no deficient training shown and no expert standard of care established | Court held expert testimony is typically necessary; no evidence showed deficient training, so State was not negligent; judgment reversed on breach theory |
Key Cases Cited
- Horridge v. St. Mary's County Dep't of Soc. Serv., 382 Md. 170 (Md. 2004) (duty in negligence requires foreseeability and proximity; establishes elements of duty and breach)
- Muthukumarana v. Montgomery County, 370 Md. 447 (Md. 2002) (establishes duty analysis and public-vs-private duty framework for police)
- Ashburn v. Anne Arundel County, 306 Md. 617 (Md. 1986) (public duty doctrine; duty to the public generally, with special-relationship exception)
- Ford v. Baltimore City Sheriff's Office, 149 Md.App. 107 (Md. Ct. App. 2002) ( disfavors negligent training/supervision claims absent special relationship or breach; discusses public duty and severance in trial)
- Evans v. Morsell, 284 Md. 160 (Md. 1978) (critical standard: whether employer knew or should have known of incompetence for negligent retention)
- Remsburg v. Montgomery, 376 Md. 568 (Md. 2003) (duty analysis factors for existence of a legal duty)