Maryland
How Curtis v. City of New York applies in Maryland: state-specific rules, key cases, and bar exam notes for Torts.
Maryland law follows the principles outlined in Curtis v. City of New York in regards to negligence and public duty. Specifically, Maryland courts recognize that a duty of care may exist when governmental entities undertake a specific course of action that affects an individual's rights or safety.
In Maryland, a government entity may be held liable for negligence if it has a special duty to an individual beyond the general public.
The Maryland Court of Appeals held that a government entity can be liable for negligence when it creates a special duty to individuals through its actions.
The court ruled that mere failure to act by a municipality does not constitute liability, aligning with the principle that public agencies are typically not liable for failure to provide adequate services.
The court recognized that a specific promise or undertaking can create a duty of care that resulted in liability when not fulfilled.
Maryland's approach is consistent with federal standards, which hold that a duty of care may arise when a government entity undertakes specific actions affecting an individual's rights. However, Maryland emphasizes the 'special duty' doctrine more distinctly, requiring a higher threshold for establishing liability.
Understanding the nuances of the special duty doctrine is essential for the Maryland bar exam, particularly in the context of tort liability against government entities.