Maryland
How Bishop v. State of New York applies in Maryland: state-specific rules, key cases, and bar exam notes for Torts.
Maryland law recognizes the principle of governmental immunity but allows for exceptions where direct negligence can be established. The application of these principles in Maryland courts often involves a nuanced examination of the actions of state agents and an assessment of whether those actions fell outside the bounds of immunity.
In Maryland, the state may be held liable for negligence in certain circumstances if a plaintiff can demonstrate that the state or its agents breached a duty of care owed to the plaintiff without relying solely on traditional governmental immunity.
The court allowed a claim against the Board of Education for negligence in failing to protect students, indicating that governmental entities can be liable under certain conditions.
The court held that Maryland can be liable for torts committed by state employees if the employees were found not to be acting within the scope of their official duties.
The court ruled that the State is not immune from liability for negligent acts that are deemed operational rather than discretionary.
Maryland's approach is somewhat similar to the federal standard in that both allow for certain exceptions to immunity. However, Maryland's specific criteria for establishing when the state may be liable is more stringent and rooted heavily in the actions of state agents.
Understanding the nuances of state immunity and the exceptions in Maryland is crucial for success on the Maryland bar exam, especially in torts-related essays.