Governmental Liability

Baltimore Key Bridge Collapses After Being Hit by Cargo Ship

April 2, 2024 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Traffic signs and detour signals are vital parts of maintaining safe traffic practices. While it would be nice to be aware of every single thing on the road ahead, sometimes obstacles can be hidden from plain view or in blind spots on the road. Without warning signs, drivers may only become aware of the obstacle when it is too late. This is why warning signs for traffic are incredibly important. They can be temporary signs that warn traffic about construction zones, detours, obstacles, or changes in the conditions ahead. Recently, officials were able to suddenly halt traffic across the Baltimore Key Bridge, minutes before the bridge collapsed, saving many lives. A CNN news article described the circumstances surrounding the bridge collapse.

The Francis Scott Key Bridge collapsed early Tuesday, March 26, after a massive container ship lost power and crashed into the iconic Baltimore bridge, sending people and vehicles into the frigid Patapsco River. Six people, believed to be part of a road construction crew, are presumed dead and the Coast Guard has ended its active search and rescue mission. According to Maryland Governor Wes Moore, over 30,000 people commuted daily on the bridge. Governor Moore also stated that the quick work of authorities in closing the bridge had saved lives. Radio traffic captured how authorities stopped traffic and worked to clear the bridge seconds before the impact. Maryland State Police Secretary Col. Roland L. Butler Jr. said there is a “distinct possibility” more vehicles were on the bridge, but authorities have not found any evidence to support that.

What Caused the Francis Scott Key Bridge to Collapse?

According to investigations, the ship pilot quickly gave a string of orders, calling for a hard rudder to port — as far left as possible — and for the anchor to be dropped. Additionally, the pilot was the one who contacted the pilot dispatch office to shut down traffic to the bridge. Even with the mitigation measures in place, eight people were on the bridge when it fell, according to officials. At least two people were rescued — one was taken to the hospital and was later discharged, fire officials and the medical center said. Dive teams from various state and local agencies were brought in to assist in search-and-rescue operations, according to Maryland State Police Secretary Col. Roland L. Butler Jr. The mission started with 50 personnel and continued to grow before the Coast Guard announced that it was suspending its active search-and-rescue operation and transitioning to a “different phase.”

City and County Liability Related to Accidents Occurring in Maryland Public Parks

October 23, 2020 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

If an individual is injured at a public park in Maryland, the individual’s negligence claim may be barred under governmental immunity. In state parks (owned and operated by the State of Maryland), the state is often protected under sovereign immunity. In county and city parks (owned and operated by a country or a municipality), local governments may similarly be protected under governmental immunity. Yet, the governmental immunity that protects cities and counties is more limited than the state’s sovereign immunity. In cases involving local governments, they are only immune from a civil suit if the conduct at issue is categorized as “governmental.” If the case is based on activity by a local government, it is only immune if the conduct at issue is “private,” “corporate,” or “proprietary.”

In general, Maryland courts have found that governmental activities are solely for the public’s benefit, sanctioned by the legislature, and do not involve private interest. Courts have also found that the difference between governmental activities and proprietary activities are activities that are performed for the common good as opposed to activities that are carried out for the benefit or profit of a corporation. In practice, the line between governmental and proprietary activities is not always clear cut, and often depends on the factual circumstances of the individual case.

In a recent state appellate case, the court considered whether the county was immune from suit for an allegedly dangerous condition on a park trail. In that case, there was a trail located within a park that was owned and operated by the county. There had previously been a wooden lodge pole fence in the park that ran across one-half of the trail loops, which cyclists had to maneuver around. The plaintiff had ridden his bike on the trail several times before his accident and knew that the fence was there.

The State-Created Danger Doctrine in Maryland

October 6, 2020 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

The state-created danger theory imposes liability on a governmental entity for acts committed by a private actor. It generally applies in situations where the state increases the risk of harm to an individual through the state’s affirmative acts. Although courts have considered the doctrine in Maryland accident cases, Maryland had not adopted the state-created danger theory as a basis for recovery for violations under the state’s constitution. In general, under Maryland law, a private party does not have a duty to control a third party’s conduct to prevent harm to another person. However, a private party may have a duty when there is a special relationship between the private party and the third party or between the private party and the injured person. Whether a special relationship exists is determined on a case-by-case basis.

A federal appeals court recently considered the doctrine in a case involving three family members who died in a fire after the fire department failed to go look for them. According to the court’s opinion, the woman was in her apartment with her son and her stepfather and called 911 when they saw their apartment building was on fire. An operator from the fire department told her to stay inside the apartment and that help was on the way. The firefighters drove to the wrong location, and when they did arrive at the scene, they were never told that the family was inside, and no one searched for them. The three family members remained inside and died from smoke inhalation. No one looked for them until days later, when the firefighters found their bodies inside the apartment.

The estates of three family members sued the city and two fire department employees. The estates claimed that the state-created danger doctrine applied because the dispatcher told them to close themselves in their room, assured them that firefighters were on their way, and then failed to communicate the family’s presence or location to the firefighters. The court explained that the doctrine requires that there be, 1.) a foreseeable and fairly direct harm, 2.) an action that shocks the conscience, 3.) a relationship with the state that makes the plaintiff a foreseeable victim, and 4.) an affirmative use of state authority that created a danger or made others more vulnerable. The court held that the doctrine was inapplicable because there was it was not an affirmative act and because the conduct did not “shock the conscience.” It held that the dispatcher did not act affirmatively because the dispatcher only failed to communicate the family’s location to the firefighters, and the operator’s failure to communicate the family’s location was not sufficient to “shock the conscience,” in part, because it was not an intentional act.

The Importance of Strict Compliance with the Maryland Tort Claims Act

March 20, 2020 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Typically, when the negligence of a person, business, or other entity results in injury to another, the injured party can pursue a Maryland personal injury claim against the at-fault party. However, when the at-fault party is a government entity, certain complications can arise.

Under the U.S. Constitution, as originally written, the state and federal governments were unable to be held liable for their actions. However, over time the inequities of this rule became apparent, as accident victims often found themselves with no means of recovery. Thus, the state and federal governments passed laws called “tort claims acts,” under which certain lawsuits against the government were allowed.

The Maryland Tort Claims Act is contained in Maryland Code sections 12-101 through 12-110 and broadly waives the state government’s immunity. Specifically, the Act waives immunity in any tort action but limits the amount of recovery to $400,000 to a single person for injuries arising from a single incident or occurrence. However, to successfully bring a case against a government entity, specific steps must be taken.

Statutes of Limitations in Maryland Tort Claims Act Cases

February 4, 2020 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

The Maryland Tort Claims Act (MTCA) was enacted in 1981. Under the Maryland Tort Claims Act, immunity is generally afforded to the state, and to state employees for their actions that are carried out without malice or gross negligence. Because it may apply in Maryland accident cases, understanding the statute, its limits, and its requirements, is extremely important.

Under the MTCA, a written claim against the state must be filed with the State Treasurer within one year of the cause of action arising. The claim must include a statement of facts and specific damages. If the Treasurer denies the claim, the case can be filed in court. However, it still must be filed within three years of when the cause of action arises. There are some exceptions to the rule, including if the State already had notice of the injury within the year after the cause of action accrued. In addition, filing a claim with the State Treasurer tolls the statute of limitations for 60 days after a final denial is made by the State Treasurer.

In a recent state appellate decision, the court considered whether another statute acted as an exception to the state’s tort claims act. Under the state’s act, there is a two-year statute of limitations for submitting claims to a state agency and also to file suit under the Act. If the state makes a final decision and denies the claim, the claimant has an additional six months from the date of mailing of the notice to file suit if the statute of limitations would expire before the end of that period.

Is Expert Testimony Necessary in Maryland Accident Claims?

January 21, 2020 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Expert testimony can be helpful in certain claims to explain evidence to the fact finder. In Maryland accident cases, expert testimony may be admitted if the court decides that the testimony will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or decide a fact at issue. Yet, expert testimony is required only if the issue is beyond the knowledge of a layperson. Expert testimony is not required “on matters of which the jurors would be aware by virtue of common knowledge.” A recent decision from a state supreme court is an example of a case in which the court found expert testimony was not required.

In that case, a child was allegedly assaulted on the playground during recess at her elementary school. The student and her mother filed a claim against the city and the Board of Education alleging negligence. The trial court found in favor of the plaintiffs, holding that the school provided inadequate supervision at the time. The trial court found there were 3 or 4 staff members and 1 student intern, which was insufficient to supervise over as many as 400 students. An appellate court reversed the decision, stating that the court should not have found the defendants breached their duty without expert testimony on the issue.

However, the state’s supreme court reversed again. The court held that expert testimony was not necessary in that case. The court explained that expert testimony is required generally in cases amounting to professional malpractice. Expert testimony is not required in cases where the negligence is so extreme that it is clear to a layperson and it is not required where the alleged error is within the common knowledge of a layperson.

Filing a Lawsuit Against the State of Maryland

November 12, 2019 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Filing a Maryland injury lawsuit can be more complicated when the state government is the defendant in the case. One potential complication is that a plaintiff must first provide notice when filing a claim against the state of Maryland in a personal injury claim.

Under section 12-106 of the Maryland Tort Claims Act (the Act), a claimant cannot bring a claim under the Act unless the claimant submits a written claim to the Treasurer within one year after the injury. The Treasurer then must deny the claim before the claim can be filed in court. The claim also must be filed within three years after the cause of action arises. There are some exceptions to the rule, for example, if the state has actual or constructive notice of the injury or of the defect within the year following the injury. The notice must comply with the requirements detailed in section 12-107 of the Act, which include a statement of facts and specific damages.

A recent case demonstrates how strictly notice requirements can be construed. In that case, an appeals court considered whether an estimate of damages in a notice to a city complied with the notice requirement. The plaintiff sent her notice to the city, notifying the city that she broke her leg after she stepped in a hole on a city crosswalk. She claimed that the city was negligent because residents had notified the city about the hole, and the city failed to repair it. In the notice, the plaintiff stated that “to the extent that [she] was require[d] to provide a dollar value,” she believed the value of the claim “may exceed $300,000.00.” She also stated that if the letter did not provide sufficient notice under the state, the city should advise her immediately in writing, and that she would correct any deficiencies. The woman subsequently filed suit in court. The city then responded to the notice, stating that the city denied liability. In response to the lawsuit, the city argued that the plaintiff had not complied with the notice requirement.

Maryland Slip and Fall Accidents Occurring in Public Parks

August 28, 2019 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

In general, Maryland personal injury law provides that landowners owe a duty to those whom they allow onto their property. This duty typically requires that the landowner cure any known hazards, or warn visitors about dangers that cannot be remedied. However, many state legislatures have enacted statutes that exempt certain property owners from liability if someone is injured while using the property for a recreational purpose.

These statutes are generally referred to as recreational use statutes. In Maryland, the recreational use statute is contained in Maryland Code section 5-1104. The law provides that a landowner who allows others to use their property without charge for an educational or recreational purpose cannot generally be liable for a guest’s injuries. This statute applies to both public and privately held land. A recent case illustrates the type of issues that can come up when a defendant cites the recreational use statute as a defense.

According to the court’s opinion, two sisters attended a free “Second Sunday” concert at a public park. To access the park, the women parked their car on the street and then descended a flight of stairs down the grassy slope. Once the women got about halfway down the hill, they exited the stairs and found a place to watch the show.

Maryland Slip-and-Fall Accidents Occurring on City Property

March 8, 2019 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Local governments, like other property owners, have an obligation to keep public spaces safe for visitors. While the procedures involved in filing a case against a government are slightly different from those required in a Maryland premises liability lawsuit against a private individual or corporation, in each of these situations a plaintiff must be able to prove that the landowner’s negligence in maintaining their property resulted in the plaintiff’s injuries.

To prove that a landowner was negligent, a plaintiff must first show that the landowner knew of the hazard that caused their injuries. Once the defendant’s knowledge is established, the plaintiff must show that the landowner was somehow negligent in failing to remedy the hazard or warn of the hazard’s existence. Finally, a plaintiff must prove that their injuries were the result of the landowner’s negligence. This is referred to as “causation.” In a recent case involving a slip-and-fall injury that occurred at a cemetery, the court discussed the plaintiff’s burden to prove causation.

The Facts of the Case

According to the court’s opinion, the plaintiff was visiting the gravesites of several family members in a cemetery that was owned by the defendant city when he stepped in a hole that was covered by grass. Evidently, the hole was deep enough such that the plaintiff fell down to his knee, folded over at the waist, and struck his head against the ground.

The Issue of Government Immunity in Maryland Personal Injury Cases

January 16, 2019 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Whenever someone is injured due to the negligence of another person or entity, the injured party is entitled to pursue a claim for compensation through a Maryland personal injury lawsuit. However, based on longstanding constitutional principles, government agencies enjoy immunity from some of these lawsuits. Thus, one of the most important considerations after a Maryland accident is whether any of the defendants are government employees and, if so, whether they may be entitled to immunity.

Under Maryland case law, government agencies are entitled to immunity when carrying out discretionary duties. A discretionary duty, as the name implies, is one which involves the exercise of discretion. If an act is not discretionary, it is ministerial, meaning that it does not require the judgment of a government employee. A recent case illustrates how courts approach the distinction between ministerial and discretionary acts.

The Facts of the Case

According to the court’s opinion, a young girl was planning on attending a field trip to a pool that was located in a government-owned park. Because the young girl could not swim, her mother spoke with the playground coordinator, who reassured her that the girl’s ability would be assessed in the shallow end of the pool. The mother agreed to let her daughter go on the field trip. Tragically, however, the young girl drowned in the pool as staff members were changing in the locker room.