Pendleton v. State
921 A.2d 196, 2007 Md. LEXIS 183, 398 Md. 447 (2007)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For a negligence claim against the State for harm caused by a third party to a child in foster care, merely placing the child in a licensed facility pursuant to statute does not create a special relationship giving rise to a tort duty. The plaintiff must plead specific facts showing the State knew or should have known of the third party's dangerous propensities and the particular risk of harm.
Facts:
- In October 1999, Corey Pendleton and his mother were placed in a temporary shelter by the Baltimore City Department of Social Services (DSS).
- In January 2000, DSS removed ten-year-old Corey Pendleton from his mother's custody and placed him into foster care.
- Pendleton was placed at Finding Direction, Inc., a licensed residential group home.
- At the group home, Pendleton was assigned to share a room with James Wratchford, a sixteen-year-old resident.
- Over a period of approximately one month, Wratchford sexually and physically abused and battered Pendleton in their shared room.
- Pendleton eventually reported the abuse to a friend, who then informed the staff of the group home.
- Upon being notified of the abuse, the group home operators took action to ensure no further contact between Pendleton and Wratchford.
- In February 2000, Pendleton was removed from the group home and reunited with his mother.
Procedural Posture:
- Corey Pendleton's mother filed a claim with the State under the Maryland Tort Claims Act, which was denied.
- Pendleton, through his father as next friend, filed a negligence complaint in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City against the State of Maryland and the Baltimore City Department of Social Services (DSS), among others.
- The State defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
- The Circuit Court (trial court) granted the State's motion, dismissing the State and DSS from the lawsuit.
- A default judgment was subsequently entered against the remaining defendants (the group home operators) for $597,000.
- Pendleton, as appellant, appealed the trial court's dismissal of the State defendants to the Court of Special Appeals (intermediate appellate court).
- Before proceedings in the intermediate appellate court, the Court of Appeals of Maryland (the state's highest court) issued a writ of certiorari on its own initiative to hear the case.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the State of Maryland have a special or statutory duty of care to protect a child in its custody from physical and sexual abuse by a roommate in a state-licensed group home, when the State's only action was placing the child in the home pursuant to its statutory obligations?
Opinions:
Majority - Bell, Chief Judge
No. The State of Maryland does not have an actionable tort duty under these circumstances because the complaint failed to plead sufficient facts to establish either a statutory duty or a special relationship. A negligence claim requires the plaintiff to plead facts showing the defendant owed them a duty of care. The appellant argued this duty arose from a statute and a special relationship. The court rejected the statutory duty claim because the complaint did not allege the State placed Pendleton in a group home that was out of compliance with licensing laws, which is what the relevant statute forbids. The court also rejected the special relationship claim, holding that the State's statutorily mandated act of placing a child in foster care is a general public service, not a specific 'affirmative act' that creates a special duty to protect that child from all harm. For a duty to control a third party like Wratchford to exist, the plaintiff must allege specific facts showing the State knew or should have known of Wratchford’s dangerous propensities, but the complaint's allegation of such knowledge was a mere legal conclusion unsupported by facts. Therefore, the complaint failed to establish a legally cognizable duty of care owed by the State to Pendleton.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the high bar for pleading a negligence claim against a government entity under the public duty doctrine. It clarifies that the State's general, statutorily mandated duty to provide child welfare services does not automatically create a specific, actionable tort duty to protect an individual child from the unforeseeable criminal acts of a third party. The decision firmly places the pleading burden on plaintiffs to allege specific facts demonstrating the State's actual or constructive knowledge of a particular danger, rather than relying on conclusory statements. This precedent protects state agencies from broad liability and narrowly construes the 'special relationship' exception, ensuring that liability attaches only when the State's actions go beyond its general public function or when it has specific knowledge of a threat.
Unlock the full brief for Pendleton v. State