State to Use of Wilkerson v. Baltimore County
| Decision Date | 20 November 1958 |
| Docket Number | No. 51,51 |
| Citation | 146 A.2d 28,218 Md. 271 |
| Parties | STATE of Maryland To The Use Of Meredith WILKERSON, Widow, et al. v. BALTIMORE COUNTY, Maryland and Louis De Manss. |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Milton B. Allen, Baltimore (Harry A. Cole; Brown, Allen & Watts, Baltimore, on the brief) for appellant.
Richard C. Murray, Towson (W. Lee Harrison, Towson, on the brief) for Baltimore County.
No appearance and no brief for Louis De Manss, appellee.
Before BRUNE, C. J., HENDERSON, HAMMOND, and HORNEY, JJ., and W. LAIRD HENRY, Jr., Special Judge.
This appeal is from a judgment for costs entered in favor of the defendant, appellee, Baltimore County, after a demurrer filed by it had been sustained without leave to amend. The declaration, in two counts, alleged that Clarence Wilkerson had been fatally shot by the defendant, Louis De Manss, a police officer, 'regularly employed as an agent, employee and servant of the Police Department of Baltimore County', and that the shooting was 'in reckless disregard of human life and discarding those precautions proper to the circumstances,' and 'without justification or excuse'. The trial court held that the County was not liable for the alleged tort of the police officer, because it was exercising a governmental function when it employed him.
We think the Maryland law on the point was settled in the case of Wynkoop v. Mayor and Council of Hagerstown, 159 Md. 194, 150 A. 447. The rule there stated is supported by the great weight of authority. See Borchard, Government Liability in Tort, 34 Yale Law Journ. 229, 240; Prosser, Torts (2d ed.) § 109; Restatement of Torts, sec. 887, comment (c) and sec. 888, comment (c); 18 McQuillin, Municipal Corporations (3d ed.) §§ 53.79, 53.80. We find no merit in the appellants' argument that Baltimore County somehow stands in a different position because of the adoption of its present Charter under Article XI-A of the Maryland Constitution, and Code (1957), Art. 25A, sec. 1. If, as the appellants argue, the rule ought to be changed so as to enlarge the liability of municipal corporations, it must be done by the Legislature and not by this Court, Mayor and City Council of Baltimore v. State, 173 Md. 267, 273, 195 A. 571; Cox v. Board of County Com'rs of Anne Arundel County, 181 Md. 428, 433, 31 A.2d 179. Cf. Howard v. South Baltimore General Hospital, 191 Md. 617, 619, 62 A.2d 574; and Thomas v. Board of County Com'rs of Prince George's County, 200 Md....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Huemmer v. MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL, ETC.
...denied, 375 U.S. 845, 84 S.Ct. 98, 11 L.Ed.2d 72, reh. denied, 375 U.S. 936, 84 S.Ct. 334, 11 L.Ed.2d 268 (1963); State v. Baltimore County, 218 Md. 271, 146 A.2d 28 (1958). While this observation may be accurate, it does not automatically follow that a municipality exercising its police po......
-
Berkey v. Delia
...within the purview of New York Times. Its holding is made without analysis, merely citing Robinson, Harris, and Wilkerson v. Baltimore County, 218 Md. 271, 146 A.2d 28 (1958), for this proposition. Robinson, Harris, and Wilkerson were all concerned with a public official in a context entire......
-
Austin v. City of Baltimore
...act in the face of repeated reminders of its role in the matter in the opinions of this Court. See, for example, State v. Baltimore County, 218 Md. 271, 273, 146 A.2d 28 (1958); Weisner v. Bd. of Education, 237 Md. 391, 395, 206 A.2d 560 (1965); Godwin v. County Comm'rs, 256 Md. at 333, 260......
-
Thompson v. Anderson
...71 (1971), Judge McWilliams wrote (at 347, 278 A.2d at 74): It is clear that policemen are "public officials," Wilkerson v. Baltimore County, 218 Md. 271 146 A.2d 28 (1958), Harris v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, 151 Md. 11 133 A. 888 (1926), and that when they are within the scope ......