## Facts

- Russell J. Newcomer, Jr. was convicted of armed robbery and placed on supervised probation subject to conditions including obeying all laws and participating in alcohol treatment.
- Newcomer accumulated alcohol-related driving offenses and, after a revocation hearing, the sentencing court continued probation but warned that another alcohol offense would likely result in incarceration.
- Newcomer later pleaded guilty to driving while intoxicated and driving while his license was suspended; probation officials allegedly treated his supervision as “non-active” and failed to report these convictions to the sentencing court.
- While still on probation, Newcomer drove under the influence and collided with a vehicle driven by Cynthia Lou Lamb, injuring the Lambs’ infant daughter, Laura, and leaving her quadriplegic.
- The Lambs sued the probation officials for negligence, alleging that reporting the violations would have led to revocation and incarceration, preventing the crash.

## Issues

1. Whether probation officers who allegedly fail to report known probation violations or seek revocation owe a tort duty of care to members of the general public later injured by the probationer.
2. Whether the absence of a “special relationship” between probation officers and an injured third party bars negligence liability for failure to protect the public from a probationer’s acts.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals of Maryland affirmed dismissal of the complaint.
- The court held the probation officers owed no legally cognizable duty to the Lambs or their child to protect them from the probationer’s later negligent/criminal conduct by reporting violations or pursuing revocation.
- Because duty was absent, the negligence claim failed as a matter of law.

## Legal Principles

- Government officials performing probation supervision generally owe duties to the public at large; a private tort duty to particular individuals requires a recognized special relationship or specific undertaking directed to the injured party.
- Foreseeability of harm, without more, does not establish a legal duty where the asserted obligation is a public one and liability would extend broadly for third-party misconduct.
- Decisions about supervision and whether/when to report violations or pursue revocation are discretionary governmental functions; courts are reluctant to impose negligence liability that would require second-guessing such judgment.
- Claims premised on the theory that different reporting would have produced revocation and incarceration can present attenuated causation concerns and policy-based limits on liability for governmental nonfeasance.

## Conclusion

The court declined to extend negligence liability to probation officers for failing to report probation violations or seek revocation where no special relationship existed with the injured motorists, holding that the officers’ obligations were public duties insufficient to support a tort claim by third parties harmed by the probationer.


Lamb v. Hopkins, 303 Md. 236, 492 A.2d 1297 (Md. 1985)