Caps & Immunities
181, 913 A.2d 678 (2006), the personal representative of an arrestee's estate brought suit against the arresting officers for wrongful death after the arrestee's fatal cardiac arrhythmia following arrest. At the trial court level, the court denied the Baltimore City Police Department’s motions to dismiss and for summary judgment, which were based on a lack of notice within the statutory period. Te trial court ruled, without explication, that good cause existed to excuse the personal representative of the arrestee’s estate from the 180- day notice requirement. On appeal, the Court of Special Appeals held that the
personal representative of the arrestee failed to offer an explanation as to why the notice of claim was not provided to the appropriate person within the 180-day period after the arrestee’s death. Id. at 210. Based on the absence of any explanation for the failure to adhere to the statutory notice period, the appellate court held that the trial judge's finding of good cause under the LGTCA fell outside the broad limits of the trial court's discretion, and reversed the decision of the trial court. Id. at 211. Another pitfall awaiting a claimant pursuing a suit under
the LGTCA is the issue of to whom notice of the claim should be sent. As stated before, the number of government
entities has increased in recent years. Pursuant to the statute, various entities have differing reporting policies. Terefore, ensuring that a claimant has provided the requisite notice to the proper person requires a thorough reading of 5-304(b) and 5-301(d). A failure to provide notice to the correct individual can translate into a complete bar to recovery. For instance in the case of White v. Prince, 163 Md. App.
129, 877 A.2d 1129 (2005), a victim of police brutality filed a claim with the Prince George’s County Internal Affairs Division, relying on the assumption that his complaint to Internal Affairs would suffice as notice pursuant to the LGTCA. By statute, the claimant was required to provide notice of his claim to the County Solicitor within 180 days. Te Court of Special Appeals held that the claimant’s failure to notify the County Solicitor of his police brutality claim within the notice period B despite the ongoing investigation being conducted by the Department’s Internal Affairs Division B was a complete bar to recovery. Te Court concluded that the plaintiff ’s complaint to the department’s internal investigation unit did not provide the County Solicitor, the entity responsible for investigating tort claims against the County, with the notice necessary to conduct a proper inquiry.
More Than Forty (40) Convenient Locations:
■ Baltimore Metropolitan Area ■ Eastern Shore
■ Western Maryland
■ Washington Metropolitan Area ■ Northern Virginia
For more information visit our website at
www.mdhealthcorp.com or call
410-318-6253 Trial Reporter / Spring 2011 25
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