 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Williams v. Maynard6/6/2000
[Whether The Failure To Comply With The Local Government Tort Claims Act's Notice Requirement Precludes The Maintenance Of A Tort Action Against A Local Government When That Tort Action Is Authorized By Code (1977, 1999 Repl. Vol.), § 17-107(c) Of The Transportation Article And Code (1974, 1998 Repl. Vol.), § 5-524 Of The Courts And Judicial Proceedings Article]
Bell, C.J., Eldridge Rodowsky * Chasanow Raker Wilner Cathell, JJ.
*Chasanow, J., now retired, participated in the hearing and conference of this case while an active member of this Court but did not participate in the decision and adoption of this opinion
Under the Local Government Tort Claims Act (LGTCA), Maryland Code (1974, 1998 Repl. Vol., 1999 Supp.), §§ 5-301 through 5-304 of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article, Maryland counties and other entities defined therein as "local governments" are, inter alia, responsible for paying, up to certain limits, judgments for compensatory damages rendered against their employees based on tortious acts committed in the scope of employment. In addition, the LGTCA generally requires that "an action for unliquidated damages may not be brought against a local government or its employees" unless the plaintiff first provides written notice of his or her claim to the local government "within 180 days after the injury." See § 5-304.
Prior to the enactment of the LGTCA, a similarly worded notice requirement had been in effect for decades as an independent statute, most recently codified as Code (1974, 1984 Repl. Vol., 1986 Cum. Supp.), § 5-306 of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article, but this notice requirement referred only to tort actions brought against counties and municipal corporations. It did not pertain to actions brought against employees or the numerous entities, which are neither counties nor municipal corporations, defined as local governments for the purposes of the LGTCA. When the LGTCA was enacted by Ch. 594 of the Acts of 1987, § 5-306 was repealed.
This case presents the issue of whether the failure to comply with the LGTCA's notice requirement precludes the maintenance of a tort action against a local government when that tort action is authorized by Code (1977, 1999 Repl. Vol.), § 17-107(c) of the Transportation Article and Code (1974, 1998 Repl. Vol.), § 5-524 of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article, which were enacted prior to the enactment of the LGTCA and which partially waive governmental immunity without expressly requiring that any notice of a claim be given to a local government.
I.
This case arose out of a traffic accident which occurred in Montgomery County on August 9, 1994, between a motor vehicle driven by the petitioner, John Williams, Jr., and a vehicle owned by Montgomery County and operated by county employee Thomas Maynard. As a result of the accident, Williams's vehicle was damaged and he sustained personal injuries.
On August 16, 1994, the law firm retained by Williams contacted the claims supervisor for Consolidated Risk Management Services regarding the accident. Consolidated Risk Management Services was, at that time, the claims administrator for Montgomery County, which was self-insured pursuant to § 17-103 of the Transportation Article. The claims supervisor informed the representative of the law firm that the supervisor already possessed some information about the accident and requested that the law firm send a letter of representation to his attention. That same day, exactly one week after the accident, Williams's attorney wrote a letter to the claims supervisor formally notifying him of the claim. The claim was acknowledged by the claims supervis
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Maryland Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|