American Structures, Inc. v. City of Baltimore
| Decision Date | 07 October 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 14,14 |
| Citation | 278 Md. 356,364 A.2d 55 |
| Parties | AMERICAN STRUCTURES, INC. v. Mayor and CITY Council OF BALTIMORE et al. |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Adrian L. Bastianelli, III, Washington, D.C. (Hudson, Creyke, Koehler & Tacke, Washington, D.C., Jay v. Strong, Jr. and Edward L. Blanton, Jr., Towson, on the brief), for appellant.
H. Vernon Eney, Robert R. Bair, John W. Scheflen, Venable, Baetjer & Howard, Baltimore, filed on the brief for amicus curiae, Baltimore Contractors, Inc.
Stanley B. Rohd and Whiteford, Taylor, Preston, Trimble & Johnston, Baltimore on the brief, for amicus curiae, Stamford Const. Co.
James R. Avnet, Spec. Atty., Baltimore (Francis B. Burch, Atty. Gen., J. Michael McWilliams, Asst. Atty. Gen., Nolan H. Rogers, Spec. Asst. Atty. Gen., on the brief), for State Highway Administration.
Allan B. Blumberg, Chief Sol., Baltimore (Benjamin L. Brown, City Sol., Ambrose T. Hartman, Deptuy City Sol. and Otho M. Thompson, Asst. City Sol., Baltimore, on the brief), for Mayor and City Council of Baltimore.
Argued before MURPHY, C. J., and SINGLEY, SMITH, DIGGES, LEVINE, ELDRIDGE and ORTH, JJ.
This case presents the issue whether a municipality, here the City of Baltimore (the City), may interpose the defense of sovereign immunity in an action in contract. We granted certiorari after the case had been docketed but before it was argued in the Court of Special Appeals.
In May, 1974, the City entered into a contract with American Structures, Inc. (the Contractor) for the construction of a storm drain outfall, in accordance with the specifications prepared by the Maryland State Highway Administration (the Highway Administration).
Work commenced in September, 1974, and thereafter the Contractor encountered subsurface conditions which allegedly differed substantially from those contemplated by the contract documents. Apparently in reliance on a provision of contract documents which required the giving of prompt notice should conditions be identified which increased the character of the work to be performed under the contract, the Contractor, in January, 1975, notified the City that it was confronted with such a situation. The City apparently directed the Contractor to proceed with the work.
When negotiations looking toward an adjustment of the contract price proved inconclusive, in September, 1975, the Contractor brought a declaratory judgment action in the Circuit Court of Baltimore City against the City and the Highway Administration, which had as its purpose the construction of the contract provisions. Both defendants interposed the defense of sovereign immunity, the City by a motion to dismiss, and the State by a motion raising preliminary objection. From an order dismissing the action, the Contractor has appealed. While the application of the doctrine of sovereign immunity in the United States has been roundly criticized, see Godwin v. County Comm'rs of St. Mary's County, 256 Md. 326, 330-34, 260 A.2d 295, 297-98 (1970); Clarke, Municipal Responsibility in Tort in Maryland, 3 Md.L.Rev. 159 (1939); Borchard, Government Liability in Tort, 34 Yale L.J. 1, 2 (1924); W. Prosser, Law of Torts, Chapter 26, § 131, 975-87 (4th ed. 1971), it has survived, in one form or another, in some jurisdictions. 1
In Maryland, the rule of our cases is clear. If an action is brought for a money judgment in contract or in tort against the State or an agency of the State without the State's consent, actual or implied, it must be defended on the ground of sovereign immunity, which cannot be waived unless funds have been appropriated for the purpose or the agency can provide funds by taxation, Calvert Associates Limited Partnership v. Department of Employment & Social Services, 277 Md. 372, 357 A.2d 839 (1976); Charles Brohawn & Bros. v. Board of Trustees of Chesapeake College, 269 Md. 164, 304 A.2d 819 (1973); Jekofsky v. State Roadd Comm'n, 264 Md. 471, 287 A.2d 40 (1972); University of Maryland v. Maas, 173 Md. 554, 559, 197 A. 123, 125 (1938); Dunne v. State, 162 Md. 274, 159 A. 751 (1932); State v. Baltimore & Ohio R. R., 34 Md. 344 (1871), aff'd, 21 Wall. (88 U.S.) 456, 22 L.Ed. 678 (1875). 2 See also Central Collection Unit v. Atlantic Container Line, Ltd., 277 Md. 626, 356 A.2d 555 (1976).
As regards counties and municipalities, however, the rule is different. Lake Roland Elevated Ry. v. Baltimore, 77 Md. 352, 370-72, 381, 26 A. 510, 512-13, 516 (1893) and Rittenhouse v. Baltimore, 25 Md. 336, 346-48 (1866), are authority for the proposition that while a municipality may abrogate its responsibility under a contract entered into in performance of a governmental function if dictated by the public goods, the municipality is answerable in damages incurred to the time of cancellation. As a consequence, municipalities and counties have been regularly subject to suit in contract actions, whether the contracts were made in performance of a governmental or proprietary function, as long as the execution of the contract was within the power of the governmental unit, Mayor & City Council of Baltimore v. Landay, 258 Md. 568, 267 A.2d 156 (1970); City of Frederick v. Brosius Homes Corp., 247 Md. 88, 92, 230 A.2d 306, 308 (1967); Funger v. Mayor & Council of Somerset, 244 Md. 141, 223 A.2d 168 (1966); Bair v. Mayor & City Council of Westminster, 243 Md. 494, 221 A.2d 643 (1966); Mayor & City Council of Baltimore v. Allied Contractors, Inc., 236 Md. 534, 204 A.2d 546 (1964); Mayor & City Council of Baltimore v. Industrial Electronics, Inc., 230 Md. 224, 186 A.2d 469 (1962); Nelley v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, 224 Md. 1, 166 A.2d 234 (1960); Gaver v. County Comm'rs of Frederick County, 175 Md. 639, 650, 3 A.2d 463, 467-68 (1939); Merryman v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, 153 Md. 419, 138 A. 324 (1927); Christhilf v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, 152 Md. 204, 136 A. 527 (1927); Mayor & City Council of Baltimore v. Poe, 132 Md. 637, 104 A. 360 (1918); Mayor & City Council of Baltimore v. Clark, 128 Md. 291, 97 A. 911 (...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Leese v. Baltimore County
...under a contract entered into in performance of a governmental function if dictated by the public good." American Structures, Inc. v. Baltimore, 278 Md. 356, 359, 364 A.2d 55 (1976). This is not to suggest that counties and municipalities are fully immunized against contractual liability. R......
-
Maryland Classified Emp. Ass'n, Inc. v. Anderson
...the provisions of P (5) are valid. Although local governments are normally bound by their contracts, see American Structures v. City of Balto., 278 Md. 356, 364 A.2d 55 (1976), it has long been recognized that questions of invalidity and enforceability arise when governmental bodies attempt......
-
Austin v. City of Baltimore
...L.Ed. 678 (1875) to Calvert Associates v. Department, 277 Md. 372, 357 A.2d 839 (1976), was set out in American Structures v. City of Balto., 278 Md. 356, 359, 364 A.2d 55, 56 (1976) . . . The frequent and increasingly vigorous attacks upon the doctrine have been no more persistent than our......
-
Montgomery County v. Revere Nat. Corp., Inc., 118
...entities. See, e.g., Fraternal Order of Police v. Baltimore County, 340 Md. 157, 665 A.2d 1029 (1995); American Structures v. City of Balto., 278 Md. 356, 364 A.2d 55 (1976). Thus, Maryland law has never recognized the defense of governmental immunity in contract actions against counties an......