Theurer v. Farrell
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 26 September Term, 2003 _________________________________________ BETTY JEAN THEURER, et al. v. JOHN S. FARRELL, et al. __________________________________________ Bell, C.J. Eldridge Raker Wilner Cathell Harrell Battaglia, JJ. __________________________________________ Opinion by Eldridge, J. _________________________________________ Filed: June 19, 2003 The petitioners, Betty Jean Theurer and Donald Lee Theurer, are the parents of Daniel Lee Theurer who died on September 11, 1998, as a result of a motor vehicle accident allegedly caused by Daniel s intoxication. At the time of his death, Daniel was unmarried and had no children. Prior to the accident, Daniel had been a volunteer participant in a Prince George s County Police Department Driving While Intoxicated training program for police offic ers, during which program Daniel allegedly consumed a large quantity of alcoholic beverages. It was alleged that the alcoholic beverages, administered to Daniel by police officials as part of the program, rendered Daniel helpless and unable to protect himself . Betty Jean Theurer, as personal representative of Daniel s estate, and Betty Jean Theurer and Donald Lee Theure r indi vidu ally, instituted this wrongful death and survival action by filing, in the Circuit Court for Prince George s Cou nty, a complaint against the Prince George s County Chief of Police and several other officials of the Prince George s County Police Departm ent. Counts one and two of the complain t related to the wrongful death claim, with count one asserting strict liability and count two asserting negligence. Counts three and four concerned the survival action, with count three sounding in strict liability and count four sounding in negligence. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss or for summary judgmen t, and, according to the docket entries and the parties, the Circuit Court dismissed counts one -2and three.1 After considerab le disc ove ry, the defenda nts filed a motion for summary judgment on counts two and four, asserting public official imm unit y. The Circuit Court denied this motion, and the defenda nts immediately noted an appeal to the Court of Special Appeals. After the filing of the notice of appeal, the defenda nts filed a motion in the Circuit Court to stay all proceedings, and the court granted this motion. The Court of Special Appeals, in a reported opinion, held that the interlocutory order denying the defendants motion for summary judgment on counts two and four was appealab le under the collateral order doctrine. The intermediate appellate court also held that the Circuit Court erred in denying the motion. Farrell v. Theurer, 149 Md. App. 424, 816 A.2d 113 (2003). The Court of Special Appeals entire appealab ility holding was as follows (149 Md. App. at 425, 816 A.2d at 113-114): This appeal is from an interlocutory order of the Circuit Court for Prince George s County denying appellants motion for summary judgmen t. The order appealed from is an exception to the general rule barring appellate review of the denial of a motion for summary judgmen t. Since appellants have interposed a plea of imm unit y, the instant appeal is properly taken. The plaintiffs filed in this Court a petition for a writ of certiorari which we have granted. In Dawkins v. Baltimore Police Department, ___ Md. ___, ___ A.2d ___ (2003), an opinion which we have filed toda y, this Court held that interlocutory orders denying immunity defenses generally are not appealab le under the collateral order 1 As pointed out in the opinion of the Court of Special Appeals, however, the record contains no written order dismissing counts one and three. -3doctrine. In light of Dawkins, as well as numerous other Court of Appeals cases discussed therein, the judgment of the Court of Special Appeals must be summa rily reversed and this appeal must be dismissed. JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF SPECI AL APPEALS REVERSED , AND CASE REMANDED TO THAT COURT WITH DIRECTIONS TO DISMISS THE APPEAL. COSTS IN THIS COURT AND IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS TO BE PAID BY THE RESPONDENTS.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
