Caps & Immunities
Getting new customers from the web has never been easier.
Create Your Website Your Business Promote Your Audience Engage
Measure Your Results
To find out what Yodle can do for you, call Yodle representative Guy Zerega at:
(857) 244-2907
an attorney from charging or receiving more than 20% of a settlement in compensation for her services. In the event that a case is resolved through a court judgment, the statute limits the attorney’s fees to no more than 25% of the award.
III. LOCAL GOVERNMENT TORT CLAIMS ACT
At the local level, the Local Government Tort Claims
Act (LGTCA) presents a unique set of obstacles for the would-be claimant. First, the number of local governmental entities continues to grow. Currently, the statute identifies 28 entities or categories of entities that are protected by the LGTCA. See MD Code, Cts. & Jud. Pro. Art.
5-301(d).
Tus, a misidentification of a tortfeasor could mean the end of a claim before it begins if a claimant is unaware of the governmental protection that a defendant possesses. Under the LGTCA, a claimant has only 180 days in which to provide notice of her claim to the government or governmental entity. See MD Code, Cts. & Jud. Pro. Art. 5-304(b)(1). In addition to the truncated period within which to file a
notice of claim, the Maryland Court of Appeals has held that a child’s minority does not, in and of itself, toll the 180-day
24 Trial Reporter / Spring 2011
notice period. In Rios v. Montgomery County, 386 Md. 104, 872 A.2d 1 (2005), the Court of Appeals held that a child injured at birth by a physician employed by Montgomery County was not entitled to a tolling of the notice period despite the plaintiff ’s infancy at the time of the injury. Te Court concluded that "good cause" may exist for a claimant’s failure to give notice within 180 days of injury, but that none of the broad categories giving rise to good cause existed in the case of Plaintiff Rios. Factors that the court may consider in determining the existence of good cause are: 1) excusable neglect or mistake (generally determined in reference to a reasonably prudent person standard; 2) serious physical or mental injury and/or location out-of-state; 3) the inability to retain counsel in cases involving complex litigation; 4) ignorance of the statutory notice requirement; and 5) representations made by local government representatives which are misleading. Id. at 141. Recent case law on the issue of good cause existing to excuse an untimely filing of notice is encouraging. In Prince George’s County v. Longtin, 190 Md. App. 97, 988 A.2d 20 (2010), the Court of Special Appeals found that good cause existed for the plaintiff ’s failure to file a notice of claim within the statutorily required 180 days. Mr. Longtin filed suit for tortious conduct and constitutional violations perpetrated by the Prince George’s County Police Department. He alleged that he was wrongfully arrested and convicted for the rape and murder of his estranged wife. Mr. Longtin did not file notice of his claim until more than one year after the wrongful arrest occurred. Te Police Department raised several unsuccessful motions at the trial court level based on the untimely notice of Mr. Longtin’s claims. At trial, the jury returned a verdict for Mr. Longtin. On appeal by the Police Department, the Court of Special Appeals held that although Mr. Longtin filed his notice of claim a full year after his claim accrued, the circumstances surrounding Mr. Longtin’s arrest and imprisonment during the notice period were sufficient to find that good cause existed for the untimeliness of Mr. Longtin’s claim. Specifically, the Court noted that Mr. Longtin had been incarcerated during the notice period and he did not learn that exculpatory evidence had been withheld until after the notice period expired. Te Court found that Mr. Longtin’s untimely filing was excusable, as someone in a similar position could not have provided timely notice. Practitioners must note also that when a trial court
has ruled that good cause exists for an untimely filing, it is important for the judge to discuss the reasons for her finding of good cause on the record, lest the trial court’s decision be reversed on appeal. In Wilbon v. Hunsicker, 172 Md. App.
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68