Baltimore v. Whalen
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Mayor and City Council of Baltimore v. Suzanne Whalen No. 101, September Term, 2005 Headnote: A municipality is entitled to governmental immunity with respect to tort claims arising from the municipality s alleged negligenc e in the maintenance of public parks when the injury takes place within the boundaries of the park but outside the bound aries of a pu blic way. Circuit Co urt for Baltim ore City Case # 24-C-03-000948 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 101 September Term, 2005 Mayor and City Cou ncil of Baltimore v. Suzanne Whalen Bell, C. J. Raker Wilner Cathell Harrell Battaglia Greene, JJ. Opinion by Cathell, J. Har rell, J ., join s in ju dgm ent o nly. Wilner, J., concurs Filed: October 19, 2006 Suzann e Whale n, respond ent, who is leg ally blind, was in jured wh en she fell into a utility hole wh ile her guide dog wa s doing his business within the legal boundaries of Leone Riverside Park. She filed suit against the M ayor and City Council of B altimore, petitioner, claiming that Baltimore City, which owns and maintains Leone Riverside Park, was negligent by failing to ensure that the utility hole was safely covered. Petitioner moved fo r summary judgment and asserted the defen ses of governm ental immunity, statutory immunity under a recreational use statute, and lack of actual or constructive notice of the danger posed by the uncovered utility hole.1 The Circuit Court for Baltimore City granted petitioner s motion for summary judgment in an Order dated June 9, 2004. The Court of Special Appeals vacated that judgm ent. Whalen v. Mayor & City Cou ncil of Baltimore, 164 Md. App. 292, 883 A.2d 228 (2005). The Mayor and City Council of Baltimore filed a petition for a writ of certiorari, which this Court granted on December 19, 2005. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore v. Whalen, 390 Md. 284 , 888 A.2d 341 (2005). The following question is p resented fo r review: Is a municipality entitled to governmental immunity from a Plaintiff s tort claim that the municipa lity negligently maintained a public park? We hold that a mun icipality is entitled to go vernmen tal immun ity with respect to tort c laims arising f rom the municipality s alleged negligence in the maintenance of public parks when the injury takes place within th e bound aries of a pu blic park but o utsid e the boundaries o f a pu blic w ay. 1 In light of the status of the case and our disposition it is unnecessary to address Baltimore City s last two defenses. I. Facts and Procedural History Respondent came to Baltimore, Maryland, from Texas to attend a meeting at the National Center for the Blind ( NCB ). On February 12, 2000, at approximately noon, respondent took her guide dog into the Leone Riverside Park (the Park ) so that the dog could relieve itself. The Park, which is owned and o perated by Baltimore City (the City ), is located directly across from NCB on Johnson Street. 2 While respondent and her guide dog were making the necessary leash adjustments so that the dog could have room to void,3 2 Johnson Street runs north-south. NCB is on the west side of Johnson Street and the Park is on its east side. Thus, to enter the Park, respondent had to exit NCB moving in an easterly direction, cross the sidewalk on the west side of Johnson Street, cross Johnson Street, and cross the sidewalk on the east side of Johnson Street. After crossing the sidewalk on the east side of Johnson Street, respondent crossed over the invisible boundary line that marks both the eastern most edge of the Johnson Street right of way and the western most edge of the Park. 3 At her deposition, respondent explained the procedure used when allowing her guide dog to relieve itself: First of all, we take the dog s working harness off. When the dog there are things that the dogs know that they are not allowed to do with their harnesses on. They are not allowed to eat, they re not allowed to relieve, they re not allowed to play. The harness, these dogs have been trained to the idea that harness means work and they are all business, it s like a uniform. So we took the dogs harnesses off and lengthened the leash, the leash has two lengths, the short length you us e when the dog is g uiding, the long length you use specifically for relieving, put the dog on the long leash, you give it a command so it knows it s time to relieve, wh ich in my case means [ ]let s go potty.[ ] ... And then you I can stan d for sh ort distan ces. . . .The dog is on the left, I ve got the leash in left hand, I transfer the leash to my right hand and circled him aro und m y body. . . . ... (continued...) -2- respondent took one s tep and fe ll into an un covered, c ement-lined pit, approxim ately 19"x19" and 41" deep. She sustained injuries to her back and ankle and, as a result, was permanently disabled. On February 11, 2003, respondent filed suit against the City claiming that the City failed to use reasonable care, in that their agents and/or employees failed to ensure that the abandoned pit or hole immediately adjacent to a public sidewalk, in a grassy are [sic] w here the public and their pets cou ld be expe cted to wa lk, was sec urely covere d or fille d in. 4 On April 13, 2004, after various other motions were filed and disco very was co nducted, th e City moved for summary judgment on three grounds: 1) as a matter of law, the City was immune from suits arising from the operation and maintenance of public parks; 2) the City did not owe a duty to respo ndent und er Maryland Code (1973, 2000 Repl. Vol.), § 5-1103 of the Natural Resources Article;5 and 3) there was no evidence that the City had active or 3 (...continued) So he only stays in the radius o f my circle . Now, if he wants to take a step or two in any direction to sniff, that s permitted, but it s not like he can just start w alking a nd you g o. . . . 4 Although respondent appears to have filed suit on the last day of the three years, it also appears from the rec ord that she did com ply with the Local Gov ernment Tort Claims Act, Maryland Code (1973, 2002 R epl.Vol.), § 5-101 of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article, provision re quiring that n otice of the c laim be giv en to the loc al governm ent within 180 days of the injur y by inform ing the C ity of the o ccurren ce by letter . Respon dent asserts in her b rief to th is Cou rt that no tification took pl ace in early 200 0. 5 § 5-1103 Landowner not required to keep premises safe for recreational use. Except as specifically recognized by or provided in § 5-1106 of this subtitle, an owner of land owes no d uty of care to keep the premises safe for (continued...) -3- constructive notice of the existence of the uncovered utility hole.6 In the City s motion for summary judgment and the respondent s opposition, reference was made to a plat prepared by J. Allen Jones of the C ity s Survey Control Section entitled: SHOWING THE LOCATION O F A CONCRETE BA SE WITH A 1.6 FOOT BY 1 .6 FOOT OPENING ON THE WEST SIDE OF RIVER SIDE PARK A CROSS FRO M 1746 JOHNSON STREET. In its motion, the City pointed out that the plat confirmed that the hole is within the park property. The edge of the opening was 3.6 feet east of the [Johnson Street] right of w ay and well within the park. (Emphasis added). Respondent did not dispute the accuracy of the plat and conceded in its opposition that the edge of the hole into which the [respondent] fell lies a little more than an arm s length, 42 inch es (3.6 feet), beyond the Johnson S treet right of w ay, jus t mar gina lly within the boundary of Riverside Park. . . . (Emphasis added). 5 (...continued) entry or use by others for any recreational or educational purpose, or to give any warning of a dang erous con dition, use, struc ture, or activity on the premis es to an y person who e nters on the land for thes e purpo ses. Maryland Code (1973, 2000 Repl. Vol.), § 5-1103 of the Natural Resources Article. 6 As we have indicated, we are not required to address the issue of notice of the defect in the present cas e. We no te, howev er, that this Co urt has held that before a municip ality may be held liab le by an injured membe r of the pub lic it must have actual or constructive preinjury notice of the existence of a hazard, even when the hazard is in a public way. Weisner v. Mayor and Counc il of Rockville , 245 M d. 225, 228 , 225 A.2d 648, 650 (1967); Leonard v. Lee, 191 Md. 426, 431, 62 A.2d 259, 261 , (1948); Keen v. Mayor and City Council of Havre de Grace, 93 Md. 34, 39, 48 A. 444, 445 (19 01). -4- On June 9, 2004, the Circuit Court for Baltimore City heard arguments on the motion for summary judgment and issued an Order that same day granting the City s motion for the reasons enum erated o n the rec ord. 7 It was from this ruling that respondent noted an appeal to the Court of Special Appeals. In the Court of Special Appea ls, the parties were forced to reco nstruct the trial court s ruling on the mo tion for sum mary judgm ent from m emory and n otes due to the lack of a hearing transcript. The parties agreed that the trial cou rt granted the motion for su mmary judgment on sovereign or govern mental imm unity ground s and not sta tutory immun ity grounds. The parties were uncertain as to that court s d isposition of the notice issu e. While the Court of Special Appeals addressed both the issues of governmental immunity and notice, the issue of notice wa s not presen ted to this Co urt. The Court of Special Appeals restated the issue before it as: [W]hether the cou rt below erred in deciding, as a matter of law, that because the accident occurred within the Park, the City is autom atically protected by governmental immunity. Whalen, 164 Md. App. at 297, 883 A.2d at 231. The intermediate appellate court focused a great deal o n the proximity of the hole to the sidewalk on the east side of Johnson Street. The court found that: [T]he [circuit] court erred in deciding, as a matter of law, that the City was 7 Unfortunately, there is no transcript of the summary judgment hearing which, presumably, contained the enumerated reasons. The court reporter s notes from that hearing were lost and a transcript was never created. -5- engaged in a govern mental fu nction in co nnection w ith the maintenance of the grassy area. Wh ile the mun icipality s duty to main tain the Park is governmental, the City s maintenance of sidewalks, streets, and contiguous areas is a proprietary function. Here, the grassy area adjacent to the sidew alk arguably served a dual purpose; a jury could reasonably conclude that someone on the sidewalk could meander off, without expec ting to fa ll into an open p it. Id. at 324, 883 A.2d at 247. For the reasons stated below, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Special Appeals. II. Standard of Review When review ing a trial court s grant of summ ary judgment, an appellate cou rt reviews the decision de novo. Rockwood Cas. Ins. Co. v. Uninsured Employers Fund, 385 M d. 99, 106, 8 67 A.2d 1026, 10 30 (2005 ); see also Walk v. Hartford Cas. Ins. Co., 382 Md. 1, 14, 852 A.2d 98, 105 (2004). Before making a determination as to whether the trial court was correct as a matter of law, the appellate court must first determine wheth er there is a gen uine dis pute of materia l fact. Jurgense n v. New Phoenix Atlantic Condominium C ouncil of Unit Owners, 380 M d. 106, 114 , 843 A.2d 865, 869 (2004). A ll factual disputes and reasonable inferences drawn from the facts of the case, are resolved in favo r of the n on-mo ving pa rty. Id. at 114, 843 A.2d at 869. Only when there is an absence of a genuine dispute of material fact, will an appellate court determine whether the trial co urt was correct as a ma tter of law . Rockwood, 385 Md. at 106, 867 A.2d at 1030; Jurgensen, 380 Md. at 114, 843 A.2d at 869. III. Discussion Petitioner arg ues that mu nicipalities are n ot liable in tort fo r alleged ne gligence in -6- maintaining public parks because doing so has traditionally been considered a governmental function. Thus, because it is undisputed that the utility hole giving rise to this incident is within the boundaries of the Park, the City contends it is protected by governmental imm unity. Respondent argues that the City is not entitled to govern mental imm unity because the maintenance of streets, public ways, and the areas contiguous and adjacent to them is a proprietary function o f govern ment. Re sponden t urges this C ourt to find th at the hole in question is contiguous or adjacent to the Johnson Street right of way and as a result, the maintenance of the area where the hole was located falls within the proprietary function of the City. In effect, respondent urges the Court to overlook the fact that the hole is within the boundaries of the Park. We reiterate that the parties have agreed that the hole is located within the boundaries of the Park an d that the ho le is not within the b oundaries of the Johnson S treet right of w ay. Moreover, the City owns the Park. Thus, there is no disp ute of material fact as to w here the incident took place and we hav e on ly to determine whether the trial court was correct as a matter of law in finding that the City was operating in its governmental capacity and was, therefore, im mune to s uit. A. The doctrine of sovereign immunity from suit, rooted in the ancient common law, is firmly embedded in the law of Maryland. Katz v. Wash. Sub urban Sanitary C omm n , -7- 284 M d. 503, 507 , 397 A.2d 1027, 10 30 (1979 ). In the same year that Katz was decided, Judge O rth wrote f or the Cou rt: The doctrine today is, perhaps, more accurately characterized as governmental immu nity, for, by judicial de cision, it is not only applic able to the State itself, but also applies generally to a county of the State and to the State's municipal political subdivisions and local agencies, unless the General Assemb ly either directly or by necessary implication has waived the im mun ity. Unlike the total immunity from tort liability which the State an d its agencies possess, the immunity of counties, municipalities and local agencies is limited to tortious conduct which occurred in the exercise of a governmental rather than a p roprieta ry functio n. Austin v. Mayo r and City Council of Baltimore, 286 Md. 51, 53, 405 A.2d 255, 256 (1979) (citations omitted). Th e distinction b etween a governm ental func tion and a p roprietary function is as follows: If the neglect or wrongful act was in the course of the performance of a purely governmental duty which had been imposed upon the municipality as a governmental or public agency by legislative ena ctment, there would be no liability in tort in favor of an individual who had been injured. ... If, on the contrary, the power given and the duty enjoined relate to the local or special interests of the municipality, and be imperative, and not discretionary, legislative, nor judicial, and the wrongful act is done in the performance of such a duty, then the act is said to be done in the private or corpor ate cap acity of th e mun icipality . . . . Mayor and City Council of Baltimore v. Eagers, 167 Md. 128, 135, 173 A. 56 , 59 (1934). Moreover, we h ave c onsi stently dec lined to ex pand or c ontract g overnmenta l imm unity: [T]he task of abrogating or altering the doctrine of sovereign or governmental immunity is one to be performed by the legislature. Austin, 286 Md. at 58, 405 A.2d at 259. The -8- distinctions which have been made over the years between governmental functions and proprietary functions are at the heart of the matter sub judice. We have said: It is often difficult to determine in a particular instance whether the duty involved is in the exercise or neglect of the municipality s governmental or political functions or of its ministe rial and p rivate or corpor ate fun ctions. Eagers, 167 Md. at 136 , 173 A. at 59. We find no such difficu lty in the case at bar. B. Petitioner urges that the holding in Mayor and City C ouncil of B altimore v. S tate, ex rel. Ahrens, 168 Md. 619, 179 A. 169 (1935) and its progeny are dispositive in the present matter. We agree. In Ahrens, the State, on b ehalf of th e parents of William Wallace Ahrens, brought suit against the City alleging that the City s negligence in maintaining Gywnns Falls Park was the cause of the boy s death. On May 21, 1933, young Ahrens, who was ten years old, and some of his friend s went to G wynns Fa lls, a natural stream flowing through G wynns Fa lls Park. The City owned and maintained Gywnns Falls Park. At a place called Twenty Foot Rock, the stream, which w as typically rather shallow, dropped off suddenly and reached a depth of 15 to 20 fe et. Most of the boys chose to swim in the deeper portion of the stream by the drop-off. Young Ahrens, who could not swim, chose to wade in the shallow water and by accident or by a tragic and youthful error in judgment, ended up in the deep water and -9- drowned.8 The Ahrens Court began its discussion by reviewing the portion of the Baltimore City Charter which created a Department of Public Parks to manage the public parks belonging to or contro lled by the M ayor and the C ity Council: Section 90 of the Charter of Baltimore City creates a department of public parks and squares of the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, and provides that the head of said department shall consist of a board of park commissioners composed of five members; section 91 of said Charter provides that the board of park commissioners shall have charge and control of all public parks, squares, bo ulevards lea ding to park s, springs, and monum ents belonging to and contro lled by or in the custody of the Mayor a nd City Cou ncil of Ba ltimore. . . . 168 Md. at 621, 179 A. at 169. The Court then identified the issue as whether or not the maintenance, control and operation of Gwynns Falls Park, as one of the public parks of Baltimore City, under the authority hereinbefore detailed, is the exercise of a governmental function? Id. at 623, 179 A. at 170. T he Cou rt reasoned that: [T]o hold municipalities liable in damages, unde r circumstances such a s are revealed in the instant case, would be against public policy, because it would retard the expansion and development of parking systems, in and around our growing cities, and stifle a gratuitou s governm ental activity vitally necessary to the health, contentment, and happiness of their inhabitants. Our conclusion, therefore, is that the maintenance, control, and operation of Gywnns Falls Par k, by th e app ellan t, is a g overnmenta l duty, discretionary in its nature, pe rformed in its political and governm ental capac ity as an ag ency of th is State. Id. at 628, 179 A. a t 173; accord Austin v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, 286 Md. 8 Young A hrens and his group were accom panied by their Sunday schoo l teacher, Mr. Bail ey. He too lost h is life wh ile tryi ng to save the d row ning boy. -10- 51, A.2d 255 (1979) (holding that even though a nominal fee was charged to participants, Baltimore City was op erating in its governmental capacity when a young girl drowned on a trip to Greenbrier State Park as a result of her participation in a day camp operated by the Baltimore City Department of Recreation and Parks); Mayor and City Council of Baltimore City v. State, ex rel. Blueford, 173 Md. 267, 195 A. 571 (1937) (holding that the maintenance and management of a public swimming pool in a public park is also a governmental function). Thus, it is the law of this State that a municipality is acting in its governmental capacity when maintaining, controlling, and operating a public park. Respondent argues that it is irrelevant that the utility hole is within the boundaries of the park because the hole is contiguous or adjacent to the public sidewalk within the Johnson Street right of way. In so arguing, she primarily relies upon Eagers, which is rea dily distinguishable from the c ase at bar. In Eagers, the estate of Eagers brought suit against the City for alleg ed neglige nt acts that occurred w hile City workers w ere cutting d own a tre e near the b oundary of a public square and a sidewalk. 167 Md. 128, 173 A. 56 (1934). On S eptember 8, 1932, August Eagers was walking in a southerly direction down the center of a public sidewalk which bordered the perimeter of Collington S quare in Balt imore City. Ne arby, several City workers were attempting to fell a tree which was 20 feet east of the closest edge of the sidewalk. Using ropes and pulleys to acco mplish their task, the workers caused one of the tree s rotten limbs, which extended in a westerly direction over the sidewalk upon which Eagers was -11- walking, to break off. The limb, which was about nine inches in diameter and about 20 feet long, fell on Eagers, injuring him . He succumb ed to his injuries two days later. The Court was called upon to decide, in pa rt, whether the cutting down of a tree, which extended approxim ately 20 feet fro m a park to wards an d over a p ublic sidewalk, was a proprietary or governmental function. The Eagers Court acknowledg ed that the case before it concerned the competin g interests of the need to maintain a public square 9 and the saf ety of travelers on a public way. 167 Md. at 136, 173 A. at 59. The Court reasoned that because it was an obligation o f a municipality to keep its streets and pub lic ways safe for travel in an ordinary manner, that it was also the duty of the municipa lity in that instance to prevent its agents and servants fro m creating a dange r on the public way. Id. Thus, the City was acting in its proprietary capacity when the workers cut the tree limb that fell onto the sidewalk because the City s actions affected Eagers while he was actually on the public way. The cases cited by the Eagers Court in support of its holding, make clear that its scope is limited to acts or omissions by the municipality which may take place outside the bounds of the public way but create actual hazards on the public way. The Eagers Court prim arily relied on Mayor and City Council of Havre de Grace v. Fletcher, 112 Md. 562, 77 A. 114 (1910) and Mayor and City Council of Hagerstown v. Crowl, 128 Md. 556, 97 A. 544 (19 16). In Fletcher, a young girl, who was actually on a paved public way, was injured when 9 The Eagers Court did not distinguish between a public square and a public park because the square was operated by Baltimore s m unicipal board of pa rk commissioners[ .] 167 Md. at 132, 173 A. at 58. -12- a keg of beer, from a stack of kegs which was on or near the sidewalk and eight feet in height, fell on her. The Fletcher Court concluded that Havre de Grace was liable for breaching its duty to keep the streets free for use by the public when it did not remove the kegs or order the hotel responsible for the kegs to remove them. 112 Md. at 570, 77 A. at 117. In Crowl, a young boy, who was also walking on a paved sidewalk that was part of a public way in front of a building, lost the use of one eye when mortar fell on him from an adjacent construction site. The C ourt foun d that Hag erstown w as liable for f ailing to vigorously enforce regulations requiring workers to pro tect the pub lic from fa lling debris when they are build ing in clo se prox imity to pu blic stree ts. Crowl, 128 Md. 556, 97 A. 544. Therefore, the Eagers, Fletcher, and Crowl holdings are factually inconsistent with those of the case sub judice. Eagers, Fletcher, and Crowl all stand for the proposition that a municipality may be responsible for protecting individuals who are physically within the bounds of a public way from hazards caused by the governmental entity which may come from outside the boundaries of the public way onto the public way that could have and should have been foreseen and prevented by the governmental agenc y. None of these cases stand for the proposition that a governmental entity loses its immunity and is liable to a person who leaves a public way and while not in a public way, encounters a hazard in a public park. Thus, the Eagers line of cases, relied upon b y responden t, is not analog ous to the fa cts presently before us. -13- Respondent also cites Haley v. Mayor and City Counc il of Baltimore, 211 Md. 269, 127 A.2d 37 1 (1956), f or suppor t. In that case, two individuals, in unrelated incidents, were injured while walking down steps which were part of a concrete walkway connecting two busy downtown intersections. The upp er level intersec tion was f ormed b y St. Paul Street, Franklin Street, and the Orleans Street viaduct. The lower level intersection was formed by St. Paul Place and Franklin Street. The concrete walkway, of which the steps w ere a part, traversed a grassy plot which was between and parallel to St. Paul Street and St. Paul Place. The grassy plot and the steps were maintained by Baltimore City s Department of Recreation and Parks. The issue before the Court was whether the maintenance of the steps was a governmental or proprietary function. The Court held that the maintenance of the steps was a proprietary function because the steps were part of a walk that was a public way that conne cted tw o other public w ays. Haley, 211 Md. at 274, 127 A.2d at 373. In so holding, the Court emphasized the importance of the location of the concrete walk. The walk was actually a public way because it connected two very busy street intersections in the downtown area, id. at 272, 127 A.2d at 372, and because the appellants were using the steps as part of the public h ighway in order to travel between p oints which we re outside the park and not for recreational purp oses. Id. at 273, 127 A.2d at 373. In essence, the Co urt decided that even though the walk was within the boundaries of the park and maintained by the Department of Recreation and Parks, the location of the existing walk, between two busy -14- dow ntow n intersection s, req uired the Cou rt to c lassi fy the walk as a public w ay. Whatever the remaining viability of Haley, in the case a t bar, respon dent, unlike the individuals involved in Haley, was not injured while traveling along an already existing walkway that connected two busy downtown intersections which were outside the bounds of the park. She was injured when she left one sidewalk, crossed a street, crossed a second sidewalk, and left that sidewalk and entered a public park, with no apparent intent to continue or connect to another pu blic way. Therefore, like Eagers, Haley is factually distingu ishable from the case before us and the law we applied there is not applicable in this case. C. Turning to the case before us, we next review relevant portions of the Baltimo re City Charter. The Charter, in this context, vests the Dep artment of Recreation and Park s with essentially the same powers that it had when Ahrens was decided. E xcept for the pow ers granted to the Board of Estimates, the executive power of the City is vested in the Mayor, the departme nts, comm issions and b oards prov ided for in this article . . . . Baltimore City Charter, Art. VII, § 1(a). Section 65 of the same article establishes a Department of Recreation and Parks and c reates the position of Director to ru n the department. A rticle VII, § 67 states that the Director of Recreation and Parks shall have the following powers and duties[,] and § 67(a) gives the Director the power to establish, maintain, operate and control parks, zoos, squares, athletic and recreational facilities and activities for the people of Baltimore City, and to have charge and control of all such property and activities -15- belonging to, or conducted by, the City[.] (Emphasis added). Therefore, the obligation of the petitioner to maintain, operate, and control Leone Riverside Park was a governmental duty, d iscre tionary in its na ture, and perf ormed in its go vern men tal ca paci ty. Respondent was not on a public way when she fell into the utility hole. She was within the boundaries of the Leone Riverside Park and the trial court did not err in deciding as a matter of law that the City is immune from suit for the injuries respondent suffered as a result of he r fall. We recall Chief Judge McSherry s timeless admonition: But hard cases, it has often been said, almost always make bad law; and hence it is, in the end, far be tter that the estab lished rules o f law sho uld be strictly applied, even though in particular instances serious loss may be thereby inflicted on some individuals, than that by subtle distinctions invented and resorted to solely to escape such consequences, long settled and firmly fixed doctrines should be shaken, questioned, confused or doubted. It is often difficult to resist the influence which a palpable h ardship is ca lculated to ex ert; but a rigid adherence to fun damental principles at all times and a stern insensibility to the results which an unvarying enforcement of those principles may occasiona lly entail, are the sures t, if not the only, means by which sta bility and certainty in the ad ministration o f the law m ay be secured . It is for the Legislature by appropriate enactments and not for the Courts by metaphysical refineme nts to provide a remedy against the happening of hardships which may result fro m the c onsisten t applica tion of e stablish ed lega l princip les. Demuth v. Old Town Bank, 85 Md. 315, 32 0, 37 A. 266, 266 (1897) (citation omitted). IV. Conclusion We hold that the trial court did not err in finding that the municipality was entitled to governmental immunity w ith respect to tort claims arising from the municipality s alleged negligence in the maintenance of a public park when the injury occurred within the -16- bound aries of a public park an d outsid e the bo undari es of a p ublic w ay. JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS REVER S E D AND CASE REMANDED TO THAT COURT WITH DIRECTIONS TO AFFIRM THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR BALTIMORE CITY. COSTS IN THIS COURT AND IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS TO BE PAID BY RESPONDENT. Judge Harrell joins in judgment only. -17- In the Circu it Court for B altimore C ity Case No. 24-C-03-000948 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 101 September Term, 2005 ______________________________________ MAYOR AND CITY COUN CIL OF BALTIMORE v. SUZANNE WHALEN ______________________________________ Bell, C.J. Raker Wilner Cathell Harrell Battaglia Greene, JJ. ______________________________________ Concurring Opinion by Wilner, J. ______________________________________ Filed: October 19, 2006 I join the Court s Opinio n. As the law now stands, Baltimore City enjoys governmental immunity with respect to its operation and maintenance of public parks in the City, and, for that reason, it may not be held liable for the injury suffered by Ms. Whalen. I write separately to suggest a legislative review of the governm ental/proprietary distinction that appare ntly crept into our law in 1914, that has been rejected by most other States, and that, at leas t as applied, m akes utterly no se nse. Judge s Eldridge a nd Cole la id all of this out in their separate opinions, one concurring and dissenting, the other dissenting, in Austin v. Sta te, 286 Md. 51, 67 , 78, 405 A.2d 25 5, 263, 269 (1979 ), and there is no need to repeat what they have said. In Baltimore County v. RTKL, 380 Md. 670, 689, 846 A.2d 433, 444 (2004), we confirmed what we had earlier said in Baltimor e v. State, 168 Md. 619, 625, 179 A . 169, 17 1 (193 5), E. Eyring & Sons v. City of Baltimore, 253 Md. 380, 382, 252 A.2d 824, 825 (1969), and Austin v. State, supra, 286 Md. at 58-59, 405 A.2d at 259, that [m]any of the decisions regarding whether a function is governm ental or prop rietary in nature a re conf using a nd alm ost imp ossible t o recon cile. This Court created the distinction. It exists as a matter of common law, and we could, if we chose, abolish it. We have not done so, largely because the county and municipal governm ents have com e to rely on the protection that gove rnmental immun ity provides. If we were to abrogate the distinction, we would the n have to decide w hether to afford immunity for what are now regarded as proprietary functions or abolish immunity for what have been regarded as governmental functions, and, should we opt for the latter, the decision might c reate fis cal and budge tary probl ems fo r local go vernm ent. The Legislature has dealt generally with local government immunity through the Local Government Tort Claims Act, in which, subject to certain exceptions and limitations, it has required local governments to compensate victims of tortious conduct on the part of local government employees . The Legislature has the ability, better th an the Co urt, to examine the issues in a more g lobal and pragmatic manner, and it ought to do so. The distressing point is that, at least on the record before us in a case that admittedly has not been tried on the merits it would appear that the City was indeed negligent in allowing a dangerous condition to exist on property that it owns and is required to m aintain, and, in my view, its liability should not depend on whether the dangerous condition was within a right-of-way having no visible boundary or 42 in ches across that invisible boun dary, on level park prop erty. -2-
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.
