When a Person Owes a Duty to Someone Other Than the Immediate Victim
Published .
The general concept
A negligence claim requires a legally recognized duty, a breach, causation, and harm. The injured person may be someone other than the person immediately exposed to the risk. The phrase “third person” describes that relationship; it does not by itself create or eliminate a duty.
How Maryland applies it
Maryland courts consider the relationship between the parties, the foreseeability of harm, and broader policy concerns in deciding whether a duty exists. Foreseeability alone does not require one person to protect every other person from every danger. Ordinarily, there is no duty to control a third person or protect a stranger from that person’s criminal conduct. A duty may arise from a special relationship, a statute, an undertaking to provide protection, or the defendant’s own conduct creating or increasing a risk. The public-duty doctrine is one example: a public agency’s duty to serve the community is generally not an individual duty unless the required special relationship exists. A careful duty analysis identifies the particular risk, the parties’ relationship, and the conduct said to create the obligation.
Related Maryland Cases and Authorities
Jacques v. First National Bank of Maryland, 307 Md. 527 (1986); Ashburn v. Anne Arundel County, 306 Md. 617 (1986); Remsburg v. Montgomery, 376 Md. 568 (2003); Quinn v. General Electric Co., No. 2, Sept. Term 2025 (Supreme Court of Maryland, 2026).