MD Supreme Court grants review of 4 cases, declines to hear case on comparative negligence

Listen to this article

The Maryland Supreme Court last month granted review of four cases to be heard during the court’s September term, while also denying review of a tort case that asked the justices to adopt a comparative negligence standard in the state.

The high court granted petitions for writ of certiorari in Baltimore XV Properties LLC v. Newsteps’ Choice North Homeowners Association, Inc., et al.; Brian Spicuzza v. State of Maryland; Mayor and City Council of Baltimore v. Theresa Abel, et al.; and State of Maryland, et al. v. Michael Young.

The justices declined to hear, among dozens of other cases, Goldman v. Progressive Spec. Insurance Co., where a Montgomery County motorcyclist asked the court to move Maryland — one of the remaining four states nationwide to use contributory negligence — in line with the majority of states that allow recovery in cases of mutual fault in tort cases.

Mayor and City Council of Baltimore

In Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, the high court will decide whether the Maryland Appellate Court erred when it held that the reasonableness of the city’s use of its land is determined solely by the significance of the interference with Theresa and Christopher Abel’s right to use their land; whether the appellate court erred when it held that the requirement of continuousness or recurrence of the things, facts or acts which constitute the nuisance was met under the circumstances of this case; and whether the appellate court erred when it held that the evidence presented was sufficient to support private nuisance liability against the city of Baltimore for a single one-day sewer backup in the Abels’ basement in 2019.

In an unreported opinion, the Maryland Appellate Court affirmed a Baltimore City Circuit Court jury’s finding that the city of Baltimore is liable in nuisance for a 2019 sewage backup in the Abels’ home that caused them to suffer nausea, dry-heaving, headaches and emotional trauma.

The Abels sued the city for negligence and nuisance following a sewage leak that spread into their home as a result of a backup caused by a clog in the city’s main sewer line. Although the jury found the city not liable for negligence, the jury found the city liable for nuisance and awarded the Abels a judgment of $18,240.

On appeal, the city of Baltimore argued that merely establishing and maintaining a sewer system does not support a finding of nuisance, which requires legally sufficient evidence of a wrongful act and that the backup was a continuous or recurring infringement on the Abels’ enjoyment of their property. The appellate court found the facts support the jury’s conclusion that the Abels’ use and enjoyment of their home was unreasonably interfered with, and that the circuit court properly denied the city’s motion for judgment.

Young

In Young, the high court will decide if the Maryland Appellate Court erred in deciding that the attack on Michael Young by fellow inmates comprised two separate “incidents” or “occurrences” within the meaning of the Maryland Tort Claims Act, thus exposing the state to liability of $800,000 rather than $400,000; if the appellate court erred in affirming the judgments against individual state personnel as “enforceable” against the state rather than vacating and directing entry of judgment against the state; and if the appellate court erred in holding that Prince George’s County v. Longtin applies to the state, where that case approved of pattern-or-practice liability only for local governments.

Following an attack by fellow inmates at the Maryland Correctional Training Center in December 2017, Young filed suit in Baltimore County Circuit Court against the state, Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services and two of the facility’s leaders, alleging violations of his constitutional rights, common law negligence claims, and that the state had engaged in a pattern or practice of failing to protect incarcerated individuals from harm by other inmates and officers.

A jury found the two facility leaders negligent and awarded Young $1 million in damages against each of them, in addition to finding the state liable for maintaining an unconstitutional pattern or practice by failing to protect incarcerated individuals, resulting in a $2 million award against the state.

In a reported opinion, the Maryland Appellate Court found the trial court erred in declining to grant the state’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict because Young did not present sufficient evidence to support a finding of a pattern or practice of unconstitutional conduct by the state. The court also held the trial court did not err in declining to grant judgment notwithstanding the verdict regarding the jury’s finding of negligence against the two facility leaders. The court capped Young’s damages to $800,000, finding the attacks on Young did not constitute one incident or occurrence.

Baltimore XV Properties

In Baltimore XV Properties, the Maryland Supreme Court will decide whether a judgment creditor — after levy, execution and sheriff’s sale of the judgment debtor’s real property to a third-party purchaser — may divest the sheriff’s sale purchaser of the purchaser’s interest in the property by accepting payment of the judgment in full from the judgment debtor and seek to have the sheriff’s sale canceled and the judgment entered as satisfied.

The case comes to the high court from the Prince George’s County Circuit Court, which denied Baltimore XV Properties’ appeal following the county’s district court awarding $3,871.59 to Newsteps’ Choice North Homeowners Association and denying the company’s motions to strike the judgment creditor’s line and the notice of satisfaction.

The district court previously found the property owner of a Bowie home failed to pay association assessments in breach of a contract. After the property owner filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy, Baltimore XV Properties purchased the property at a sheriff’s sale.

Spicuzza

In Spicuzza, the high court granted both Brian Spicuzza’s petition for writ of certiorari and the state’s conditional cross-petition.

The court will decide, among other questions, whether Maryland allows impeachment with prior inconsistent statements to be rebutted with evidence of the witness’s truthful character, if the opening-the-door doctrine applies to the otherwise-improper “why-would-they-lie” question, and if the Maryland Appellate Court wrongly concluded that two different witnesses’ testimony concerning Spicuzza’s uncharged conduct was not admissible as common scheme evidence.

In an unreported opinion, the Maryland Appellate Court affirmed Spicuzza’s convictions on charges of sexual abuse of a minor, rape in the third degree and sexual offense in the third degree, finding the St. Mary’s County Circuit Court did not err in allowing other witnesses to testify under an exception to the prohibition against propensity evidence, ruling that Spicuzza’s proffered potential witness testimony lacked adequate bases, or in allowing state prosecutors to ask Spicuzza why his daughter is lying when she described being abused by Spicuzza.