Lamb v. Hopkins

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• finding that probation officer did not “take charge” of probationer sufficient to give rise to a duty of care under Restatement (Second) of Torts § 319
• explaining that probation orders and statutes requiring probation officers to notify court of any probation violations created a duty to the court and not the general public
• holding that probation officers do not \take charge\ of probationers so as to give rise to a duty to exercise due care in controlling the probationers because of the lack of a custodial relationship and the relative freedom the probationers have in conducting their day-to-day affairs
• holding that probation officers do not “take charge” of probationers so as to give rise to a duty to exercise due care in controlling the probationers because of the lack of a custodial relationship and the relative freedom the probationers have in conducting their day-to-day affairs
• finding no liability under § 319 because defendant did not take custody of third party
• applying the special relationship doctrine to the duty owed by a probation officer to an individual injured by a probationer

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).