Maxwell v. District of Columbia was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether the District of Columbia was liable for damages caused by a police officer's negligence. The case arose when a police officer, while on duty, negligently caused a fire that destroyed the plaintiff's property. The plaintiff, Maxwell, sued the District of Columbia for damages. The Supreme Court held that the District of Columbia was liable for the damages caused by the police officer's negligence. The Court reasoned that the District of Columbia was responsible for the actions of its police officers, and that the District was liable for any damages caused by their negligence. The Court also held that the District was not immune from liability for the negligence of its police officers. The Court's decision in Maxwell v. District of Columbia established that the District of Columbia was liable for damages caused by the negligence of its police officers. This decision has been cited in numerous cases since then, and has been used to establish the principle that a municipality is liable for the negligence of its employees.

In the case of Maxwell v. District of Columbia, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a police officer could be held liable for failing to protect an individual from harm when he had been called upon by that person for assistance. The majority opinion found that no such liability existed and dismissed the plaintiff's claim on this basis. However, Justice Field dissented from this decision and argued that a duty did exist in certain circumstances where an individual has requested protection or aid from a police officer who is aware of potential danger. He reasoned that if there were no legal obligation imposed on officers in these situations then individuals would have little incentive to seek help when they are threatened with violence or other forms of harm, thus undermining public safety as well as confidence in law enforcement personnel.