Virginia Slaughter v. Mayor & City Council Baltimore, 682 F.3d 317

Racheal Wilson died during a live burn training exercise staged by the Baltimore City Fire Department.
Plaintiffs allege the Department created unduly dangerous conditions and failed to provide proper training, equipment, and safety measures, leading to Wilson’s death.
The district court dismissed Count I (§1983 due process) for failing to state a claim and declined to apply a deliberate-indifference standard outside custodial contexts.
On appeal, the Fourth Circuit affirmed, applying Collins and Waybright to hold that deliberate indifference requires intent to harm or a custodial context to shock the conscience.
The panel concluded the complaint did not allege an intent to harm and thus did not state a substantive due process claim, though state-law claims were left for state court.
Concluding that recognizing liability here would constitutionalize state tort claims and create broad public-safety implications, the court affirmed dismissal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does deliberate indifference apply to non-custodial §1983 due process claims?	Wilson's estate argues danger created by the state can support deliberate indifference.	Collins and Waybright require intent to harm or custodial status; deliberate indifference outside custody is not constitutional.	No due process claim; deliberate indifference outside custody insufficient.
Can state-created dangers alone support a substantive due process claim without intent to harm?	Creation of danger by the Fire Department could shock the conscience.	Creation of danger is not enough without intent to harm in a non-custodial context.	Not sufficient to state a due process claim.
Are Collins and Waybright controlling for this case?	Those decisions allow deliberate indifference in certain non-custodial or employment contexts.	They preclude such claims absent intent or custodial relation; the majority is consistent with them.	They control; no constitutional claim without intent or custody.
Should the case be dismissed on narrow grounds without addressing broad due process implications?	Despite negligence-like conduct, a constitutional claim may lie under deliberate indifference.	Would risk constitutionalizing state tort claims and expanding due-process scope unrealistically.	Affirmed dismissal on narrow grounds; state claims remain for state court.

Collins v. City of Harker Heights, 503 U.S. 115 (1992) (no constitutional obligation to provide minimal safety levels; ‘arbitrary’ conduct required for due process)
Waybright v. Frederick County, 528 F.3d 199 (4th Cir. 2008) (recruits’ deaths during training not due-process shock where no intent to harm)
County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833 (1998) (deliberate indifference context and custodial considerations; shocks-the-conscience standard)
DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, 489 U.S. 189 (1989) (State not liable for dangers faced by non-custodial individuals absent state action)