Preview:

REPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 187 September Term, 2011

GLORIA DIXON, et al. v. STATE OF MARYLAND

Matricciani, Watts, Eyler, James R. (Retired, Specially Assigned),

JJ.

Opinion by Matricciani, J.

Filed: June 6, 2012

This appeal arises from the death of fifteen-year-old Dominick Dixon. On September 24, 2009, appellants--Gloria M. Dixon, Ronald Eugene Dixon, and the Estate of Dominick Dixon--filed a negligence complaint against appellee, the State of Maryland, in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City. Appellants alleged that Robert Crosby, after having been released from prison two years earlier, murdered Dominick. The complaint sought money damages relating to the State's alleged negligence in supervising Crosby after his release from prison. The State filed a motion for summary judgment on January 31, 2011, arguing that it owed no tort duty to Dominick Dixon to protect him from harm by Crosby. On March 2, 2011, the circuit court entered an order granting the motion and entering judgment in favor of the State. Appellants' timely appeal followed.

QUESTION PRESENTED
Appellants present one question for our review, which we have rephrased as follows: Did the circuit court err in granting summary judgment in favor of the State because it owed no tort duty to appellants? For the reasons that follow, we answer no and affirm the judgment of the circuit court.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
This appeal involves three "units" of the Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services: (1) the Division of Corrections ("DOC"); (2) the Maryland Parole Commission ("MPC"); and, (3) the Division of Parole and Probation ("DPP").

Md. Code (1999, 2008 Repl. Vol.),

Download Dixon v. State.pdf

Maryland Law