Caps & Immunities
QuarterlyTrialReporter-3'5x4'5.pdf
8/7/2007 11:51:23 AM
Court concluded that allowing the claimant to unilaterally determine whether a tortfeasor was acting within the scope of his or her employment would deprive the local government of the opportunity to conduct its own contemporaneous investigation of the claimant’s allegations. Id. Te Court held that such an argument would eviscerate the purpose of the notice requirement in the LGTCA. Further, in Luy v. Baltimore Police Department, 326 F.
C M Y CM MY CY CMY K
Supp. 2d 682 (D. Md. 2004), the United States District Court granted the police department’s motion to dismiss based on plaintiff ’s failure to provide notice of his defamation suit under the LGTCA. Mr. Luy argued that notice was not required under the LGTCA because he was alleging a constitutional violation. Te Court held that Mr. Luy’s argument was doomed in either case “as the notice requirements of the LGTCA apply to intentional and constitutional torts.” Id. at 693. Te procedural and legal land mines awaiting a
A careful practitioner should also note that suit against
the Baltimore City Police Department requires that notice be provided pursuant to the LGTCA and the Maryland Tort Claims Act. See Baltimore Police Dept. v. Cherkes, 140 Md. App. 282, 780 A.2d 410 (2001). In light of recent case law, when in doubt, give notice pursuant to both the local and state statutory schemes. Lastly, notice is required, even for claims against
government tortfeasors acting outside the scope of their employment and for claims against government agents committing intentional torts and state constitutional violations. In Chappelle v. McCarter, 162 Md. App. 163, 873 A.2d 458 (2005), the Court of Special Appeals held that plaintiff ’s claims for, inter
alia, violation of state
constitutional due process and false imprisonment against an employee of the Baltimore City Police Department were barred because plaintiff failed to provide the notice required under the LGTCA. Id. at 166. Te appellate court wholly rejected plaintiff ’s argument that notice need not be furnished to the City Solicitor because the police employee was acting outside the scope of his employment in the commission of the tortious acts. Id. at 171. Te
26 Trial Reporter / Spring 2011
claimant seeking to sue the government are formidable, but not insurmountable. Te key to the government tort claims acts at all levels is a thorough reading of the statutes in order to identify and diffuse any issues before they become roadblocks. Practitioners who familiarize themselves with the statutory constraints inherent in bringing suit against “the Crown” will be able to successfully maneuver around these pitfalls in order to have the government "answering for its torts."
Biography
David F. Albright Jr. is a principal in the firm of Bennett & Albright, P. A., concentrating in childhood lead paint poisoning. He is a Past President of MAJ, and for many years was the Fundraising Chair of MAJ. He directed the Capital Campaign to fight tort reform. He also created the Leader's Forum and the Eagles. He is a graduate of Georgetown University Law Center,
J.D., and Harvard
College, B.A. Dawn M. Taylor received her BS from Georgetown
University and her JD from the University of Maryland School of Law. She has served as the judicial law clerk to the Honorable Sylvester B. Cox of the Circuit Court for Baltimore City and she has practiced law in the area of insurance defense. Currently, she is an associate with Bennett & Albright, P.A. Her civil trial practice focuses on plaintiff ’s work in toxic tort litigation. In addition to her membership with the MAJ, she is a member of the Maryland State Bar Association.
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