C. [§ 3.203] Local Government Tort Claim Act

• Jurisdiction: Maryland

C. [§ 3.203] Local Government Tort Claim Act

The Maryland Court of Appeals has explained that the Local Government Tort Claims Act (LGTCA or "Act") was enacted in response to a perceived insurance crisis plaguing counties and municipalities and their employees. The Act limits government liability but at the same time imposes on a local government the duty to provide to its employees a legal defense in any action that alleges damages resulting from tortious acts by an employee within the scope of employment with local government. Edwards v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, 176 Md. App. 446, 457-58, 933 A.2d 495, 501-02 (2007).

The Act, codified at Cts. & Jud. Proc. II §§ 5-301 through 5-304, states that "a local government [is] liable for any judgment against its employee for damages resulting from tortious acts or omissions committed by the employee within the scope of employment with the local government." Baltimore City Police Dep't v. Potts, 468 Md. 265, 271 (2020) (quoting Cts. & Jud. Proc. II § 5-303(b)(1)). Although the Act "does not define 'scope of employment,' [ ] Maryland case law provides an explanation of the term." Id.

"[A] plaintiff who seeks to hold a local government liable under the LGTCA for a judgment entered against its employee must initiate a proceeding that (1) joins the local government entity as a party and (2) offers the parties an opportunity to litigate whether the tortfeasor employee committed the relevant tort while acting within the scope of employment. Baltimore City Police Dep't v. Esteppe, 247 Md. App. 476, 487, 236 A.3d 808, 814, aff'd, 476 Md. 3, 258 A.3d 210 (2021). "[T]o establish that a local government employee committed a tort within the scope of employment, a plaintiff must prove that (1) the acts were in furtherance of the employer's business and (2) the acts were authorized by the employer." Id. at 501. "[T]o be considered authorized by the employer, the employee's actions must be at least incidental to those authorized by the employer, as determined by consideration of 10 factors[.]" Esteppe v. Baltimore City Police Dep't, 476 Md. 3, 11, 258 A.3d 210, 215 (2021). The Court of Appeals noted that the "10 factors" are outlined in Sawyer v. Humphries, 322 Md. 247 (1991) and Baltimore City Police Dep't v. Potts, 468 Md. 265, 227 A.3d 186 (2020), the "principal cases setting forth the standards for assessing scope of employment." Id.

A plaintiff must bring a tort action against the employee; the Act does not permit the plaintiff to sue the government directly. Edwards, 176 Md. App. at 458-59, 933 A.2d 502. In the case of a motor vehicle tort in which the city owns the vehicle, the city may be directly liable as the owner of an at-fault vehicle. Id. at 461, 933 A.2d at 504. The city also may...