## Facts

- Fifteen-year-old Tiffany Fouts attended a party where minors were drinking alcohol.
- Tiffany became ill and semi-conscious; other youths sexually assaulted her, dragged her outside in freezing rain, and left her in woods behind townhomes on K Court.
- Three youths called the sheriff’s department (not 911) and reported a girl “over here drinking” lying in the woods behind a purported address on K Court; the dispatcher, Kim Archer, said she would “send someone out.”
- The callers intentionally provided a non-existent K Court address and sought anonymity to avoid police involvement at their actual location.
- Archer relayed the call by directing officers to an existing address on J Court and omitted mention of a wooded area behind the homes.
- Officers searched behind the J Court location and nearby townhomes, found no one, and ended the search.
- No search was conducted behind K Court; Tiffany was found the next day dead from hypothermia.
- Tiffany was unconscious during the relevant period and did not know of the call or the dispatcher’s assurance.

## Issues

1. Whether a police dispatcher owed a tort duty to an unconscious victim based on receiving a report and promising to “send someone out,” when the victim did not personally rely on that promise and the callers gave false information.
2. Whether a public-safety supervisor could be liable for negligent training/supervision of dispatchers absent a private duty owed to the victim.

## Decision

- The Court of Special Appeals of Maryland affirmed dismissal of the negligence claims against dispatcher Kim Archer and supervisor James Terrell.
- The court held dispatcher liability is evaluated under Maryland’s “special duty” (special relationship) rule applicable to public safety officials.
- The court concluded Archer owed no special duty to Tiffany because neither Tiffany nor the callers justifiably relied on Archer’s undertaking.
- For substantially similar reasons, the court held Terrell owed no private duty to Tiffany; therefore, negligent training/supervision claims failed as a matter of law.

## Legal Principles

- Government and public-safety actors generally owe duties to the public at large; tort liability to a particular individual requires a “special relationship” creating a private duty.
- A special relationship typically requires a specific undertaking directed to the individual and justified reliance by the victim (or legally attributable reliance by an intermediary).
- An unconscious victim who is unaware of an undertaking cannot demonstrate the reliance needed to convert a public duty into a private duty.
- Intermediaries who intentionally provide false information and act to protect themselves cannot establish justified reliance sufficient to create a special duty.
- Absent a private duty, alleged operational errors in handling emergency calls and alleged negligent training/supervision do not satisfy the duty element of negligence.

## Conclusion

The court held that the dispatcher’s and supervisor’s public-safety functions did not create a private tort duty to Tiffany because the special-duty requirement—grounded in a special relationship and justified reliance—was not met, so the negligence and negligent-training claims were properly dismissed.


Fried v. Archer, 775 A.2d 430 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2001)