Iii. [§ 3.200] Negligence Against the State—Maryland Tort Claims Act

• Jurisdiction: Maryland

III. [§ 3.200] NEGLIGENCE AGAINST THE STATE—MARYLAND TORT CLAIMS ACT

John Smith is the owner of a commercial building located at the intersection of Baltimore and Calvert Streets in Baltimore City. The State of Maryland caused significant damage to the building as a result of installing curbs and sidewalks nearby. Smith sued the State for negligence under the Maryland Tort Claims Act.

COMPLAINT

Negligence Against the State

John Smith (hereinafter "Smith"), Plaintiff, by his attorneys, Linda P. McCoy and McCoy & McCoy, P.A., sues the State of Maryland (hereafter "State"), the Maryland Department of Transportation (hereinafter "DOT"), and the Maryland State Highway Administration (hereinafter "SHA"), Defendants, and states as follows:
1. Plaintiff Smith is the owner of a commercial building located at the intersection of Baltimore and Calvert Streets in Baltimore City, Maryland, known as 1801 Baltimore Street. The building is an historic structure, constructed in the 19th century on stone foundation walls.
2. Defendant State in 2021, through its departmental administrative entities and its agents, servants and employees, undertook the installation of new drainage, curbs, and sidewalks, along the southbound lanes of Baltimore Street under Contract No. QRSTZ (hereinafter "the Highway Project").
3. Defendant DOT is an executive department of the Maryland State Government, which was responsible for the Highway Project and through its agents, servants and employees, undertook the Highway Project.
4. Defendant SHA is an agency of the DOT, which was responsible for the Highway Project and which, through its agents, servants and employees, undertook the Highway Project.
5. The Highway Project included excavation work at the intersection of Baltimore and Calvert Streets, adjacent to Plaintiff's building, involving work related to lowering a water line and relocating a sewer line. The excavation work included the installation of a concrete vault located adjacent to and beneath Plaintiff's building.
6. On or about January 10, 2022, the excavation work adjacent to and beneath the stone foundation walls of Plaintiff's building, was well underway. At that time, Plaintiff informed the agents, servants and employees of Defendants involved in the Highway Project that the excavation was causing damage to Plaintiff's building.
7. The agents, servants, and employees of Defendants involved in the Highway Project had left the excavation adjacent to and beneath Plaintiff's building open without bracing.
8. The excavation beneath and adjacent to Plaintiff's building undermined and disturbed the foundation walls and support structures of Plaintiff's building resulting in movement of the building and cracking of the brick, concrete and other structural elements, cracking and spalling of masonry walls and foundations, jamming of doors and windows, cracking of drywall and movement of floors, walls, sills, supports, steps and other structural elements and building components.
9. On August 20, 2022, within one year after damage was sustained to Plaintiff's property, Plaintiff sent to the State Treasurer by certified mail/return receipt requested, notification of a claim under the Maryland Tort Claims Act, Maryland State Government Code Annotated, §§ 12-101 through 12-109. A copy of this letter is attached hereto as Exhibit 1.
10. By letter dated October 16, 2022, the State Treasurer's Office provided Plaintiff with an official and final denial of this claim against the State. A copy of this letter is attached hereto as Exhibit 2.
11. The State, the DOT, and the SHA, through their agents, servants and employees, as the parties responsible for the Highway Project, participated in, supervised, directed and approved the design and selection of materials and construction methods for the Highway Project.
12. The State, the DOT, and the SHA owed a duty to Plaintiff to see that the design of the Highway Project was undertaken with due care and pursuant to proper standards and practices so as to prevent damage to structural elements of Plaintiff's building during the excavation work.
13. The State, the DOT, and the SHA breached this duty and were negligent by participating in, supervising, directing and accepting an improper, deficient and defective design which did not provide for adequate protection of the structural elements of Plaintiff's building during excavation, including, but not limited to, the failure to provide for bracing and other precautionary measures during the excavation adjacent to Plaintiff's building, and, in general, the failure to consider proper precautions to prevent damage to an historic building constructed on a stone foundation.
14. As a result of this breach of duty on the part of the State, the DOT, and the SHA, Plaintiff has sustained, and will continue to sustain, substantial damage to the structural elements of his building, damage to the value of his building, damage to the appearance of his building, damage from inconvenience and aggravation, and damage from the expenditure of funds for investigations,

...