Maryland
How Baker v. State of New Hampshire applies in Maryland: state-specific rules, key cases, and bar exam notes for Torts.
Maryland courts follow a similar leniency in applying public duty doctrine as highlighted in Baker v. State of New Hampshire, recognizing that the state may be liable when it has a special relationship with a plaintiff that creates a duty to act. However, Maryland distinguishes between governmental immunity and tort liability, placing strict limits on the conditions under which the state can be held liable for negligence.
In Maryland, the public duty doctrine suggests that a government entity is not liable for failing to provide general public services unless a specific legal duty is owed to the individual harmed.
The court held that the state is not liable for failure to protect individuals from criminal acts absent a special relationship.
Confirmed that governmental entities enjoy immunity for discretionary functions unless a specific duty is established.
Reiterated that failure to enforce laws does not create liability under tort principles.
Maryland's application of the public duty doctrine is consistent with federal law but is notably stricter in the context of sovereign immunity. While federal courts recognize liability under section 1983 in specific circumstances, Maryland emphasizes the necessity of a special relationship to establish a legal duty.
Understanding the public duty doctrine and its exceptions is crucial for the Maryland bar exam, especially with respect to questions involving governmental liability in tort cases.