and Rehabilitative Servs., 698 So.2d 1194, 1199 (Fla.1997) (mentally retarded woman who became pregnant while in custody of state agency stated cause of action for negligence against agency employees who allegedly failed to follow agency’s rules and carry out their assigned duties in supervising patients); Butler v. Circulus, Inc., 557 S.W.2d 469, 475 (Mo.App.1977) (mentally retarded minor plaintiff who was resident and student at defendant’s licensed institution stated cause of action for negligence against defendant for failing to supervise employees who allegedly physically and mentally abused plaintiff as part of a behavior modification program); Restatement (Second) of Torts §§ 323-324; cf. Rogers v. S.C. Dept. of Parole & Comm. Corrections, 320 S.C. 253, 464 S.E.2d 330 (1995) (<HOLDING>); Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307, 319, 102
holding that plaintiffs who alleged a subjective chill of their first amendment rights failed to establish specific present objective harm or a threat of specific future harm holding that common law duty to warn arises when a person being released from custody has made a specific threat of harm directed at a specific individual holding all that is required to impose a duty to warn is that the defendant knew or should have known of a specific threat made to harm a specific person holding a duty to warn arises only when the potential victim is known and foreseeable holding that chilling effect claim must still be rooted in specific present objective harm or a threat of specific future harm to convey standing