Mayor of Balt. v. Wallace

309 A.3d 111

260 Md.App. 388

MAYOR and City Council OF BALTIMORE

v.Jamie WALLACE

No. 1644, Sept. Term, 2022

Appellate Court of Maryland.

February 1, 2024

Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Case No. 24-C-19-004548, Lawrence P. Fletcher-Hill, Judge

Argued by Matthew Bradford, Chief of Staff (Michael Redmond, Director and Kurt Heinrich, Chief of Defensive Litigation, Baltimore City Department of Law, Baltimore, MD), on brief, for Appellant

Argued by Curtis Daniel Cannon, Goldberg Finnegan Cannon, LLC, Silver Spring, MD, on brief, for Appellee

Argued before: Graeff, Shaw, Robert N. McDonald (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned), JJ.

Shaw, J.

This is an appeal from the denial of a Motion for Judgment in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City. Appellant, Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, presents one question for our review:

1. Did the circuit court err in finding that the Maryland Recreational Use Statute was inapplicable and denying the City’s [M]otion for [J]udgment?

BACKGROUND

On June 19, 2018, Appellee, Jamie Wallace, was riding her bicycle through the Waterfront Promenade located in Baltimore City on the south side of the Inner Harbor Marina near 402 Key Highway, on her way home from work. While she was cycling, the wheel of her bicycle became stuck in a gap between the granite bulkhead and brick pavers. She was ejected from her bicycle and fell into the Harbor. Ms. Wallace sustained multiple injuries, including a wrist contusion, abrasions to both legs, and a laceration to her right knee.

The Waterfront Promenade is an eight-mile public pedestrian walkway and shared use bicycle path that functions as a waterfront sidewalk for development sites and public spaces. The Baltimore City Charter designated the area within the Waterfront Promenade where Ms. Wallace fell, as "Inner Harbor Park,"¹ and the City’s Department of Transportation is responsible for its maintenance. Balt., Md., Charter art. I, § 9. Appellant, the City, is the owner of the property.

On August 28, 2019, Ms. Wallace filed a Civil Complaint in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City against the City. Ms, Wallace alleged that the City breached its duties to her by negligently causing, allowing to remain, and failing to warn her of a dangerous and defective condition on the premises, of which the City had actual and/or constructive knowledge. On November 19, 2020, the City filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, and on January 6, 2021, the court held a hearing on the motion. Following the arguments of counsel, the court denied the City’s motion and issued a Memorandum Opinion. The court stated, in pertinent part:

Defendant argues that the waterfront promenade, where Plaintiff sustained her injuries, is located within a park that the City has made available for recreational use, thereby bringing this matter within the scope of the [Maryland Recreational Use Statute] and thus immunizing the City from liability.

[….]

This Court finds the Defendant’s argument to be uhpersuasive for two reasons. First, it is clear from the record that Plaintiff was commuting to work. (Pit. Opp, Ex. C., Wallace Depo. at 13, 16) It is of no consequence that she might have enjoyed bicycling to work, or even if it was the highlight of her day. She was, therefore, not using the land for recreational or educational purposes.

The statute, as discussed in the cases cited by the Martinez Court, supra, is a quid pro quo whereby the landowner makes the property available for educational or recreational purposes and, in exchange, the owner gains immunity from suit initiated by individuals using the property for those purposes [….] Plaintiff simply was not a person "who enter[ed] on the land for these purposes" as contemplated by the MRUS and, therefore, the City is not immune from liability under the statute. The Court also agrees with Plaintiff that the City’s position, taken at face value, would yield an absurd result. Under section 5-1101(d)(1) of the MRUS, "roads" are specifically included in the definition of "lands." Thus, under the Defense analysis, the City would be absolutely immune from suit filed by anyone injured while bicycling or jogging on a city street.

Defendant argues that, in addition to the MRUS, the common law doctrine of governmental immunity bars this action because the promenade "cannot be considered a direct connector between two sidewalks," unlike the walkway and steps in Haley v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, 211 Md. 269 [127 A.2d 371] (1956). In Haley, the Court found that, although the walkway and steps in question went directly through a park area, they were part of the "public highway of the City" because they directly linked the sidewalks of Franklin Street and St. Paul Street. The problem with Defendant’s position is that it views the waterfront promenade in the context of its early days of existence. Since that time, the City’s establishment of the Waterfront Management District in 2007 and adoption of the City’s Bicycle Master Plan in 2006 changed the nature of the promenade. See City Ordinance 07-0851; Plt. Supp. Opp., Ex. B. Indeed, the changing times are reflected in a photograph contained in Plaintiff’s expert report, which depicts a person riding an electric scooter on the promenade. (Plt. Opp., Ex. B at 8). These vehicles, authorized by Baltimore City Code, Art. 31, § 38-6 and administered by the Department of Transportation, are clearly part of a modern transportation and commuting system that relies on thoroughfares such as the waterfront promenade, which now extends from Canton to Locust Point.

Beginning on October 14, 2022, a two-day trial commenced against the City. Ms. Wallace’s counsel read the jury the following stipulation:

Ladies and gentlemen, the parties have agreed, as Your Honor said, by stipulation that on June 19th of 2018, Ms. Wallace alleges that a gap between the bulkhead and the brick pavers of the Inner Harbor near the Rusty Scupper caused her to fall from her bike and suffer injury. The City owns the location that is the subject of this case. The maintenance of the location subject of this case is the responsibility of the City’s Department of Transportation. In May of 2012, the City hired an engineering firm to inspect the Inner Harbor from the Rusty Scupper to Pier 6. During this Inspection, it was found that there were gaps between the granite blocks of the bulkhead and brick pavers along the Promenade where Ms. Wallace alleges she was caused to fall.

In July of 2013, the engineering firm recommended maintenance and repairs of these expansion joints between the bulkhead and the brick pavers.

On November 3rd of 2016, the City received a footways Complaint by a 311 where a picture of the gap Ms. Wallace alleges caused her fall was submitted with the Complaint.

On December 18 of 2017, the City Department of Transportation representative performed a visual inspection of the location that was the subject of this case. During the December 18, 2017 inspection, the Department of Transportation representatives photograph[ed] the specific gap between the bulkhead and the pavers Ms. Wallace alleges caused her injury.

The gap in question was approximately two inches wide, up to eight inches deep and nine feet [sic]. The gap in question was a hazardous condition. The City had sufficient opportunity to correct the gap in question.

Ms. Sylvia Deye was Ms. Wallace’s first witness, and she was qualified as an expert in architecture and the design of walkways. On August 19, 2020, Ms. Deye completed a site investigation of the south side promenade where Ms. Wallace fell. Ms. Deye testified that the location where the incident occurred is a "built environment" and a "corridor." She stated, "[t]here are multiple places along the promenade for meeting areas and there are benches for meeting and gathering, but it’s also a connector between Rusty Scupper and other parts of the City, down to the markets." She testified that the gap at issue was dangerous because it was "deep and [ ] not level" and noted in her report, that the gap "was not readily apparent in this rich distracting environment making it dangerous for pedestrians and cyclists like Ms. Wallace," On cross examination the City asked Ms. Deye, "[a]s part of your investigation, you learned that this area, part of it is called Inner Harbor Park that was created by City Charter, correct?" Ms. Deye responded, "[t]here’s documentation of that, yes."

Ms. Wallace testified that on the evening of the accident, she left work and took her usual path home on her bicycle. When she entered the promenade, she noticed a lot of activity and that it was very crowded. She decided to veer toward the right side of the promenade to avoid pedestrians; and while she was riding, she came to an abrupt stop and blacked out. Once she regained consciousness, she found herself sitting upright on the rocks in the water waist deep and her knee was completely "busted open." She recalled someone calling an ambulance and that three gentlemen pulled her out of the water. Ms. Wallace did not own a car at the time of the incident and in addition to using the bicycle for transportation, she enjoyed riding it, and used it to exercise on her commute. She stated that she did not have to pay a toll or park access fee to travel through the promenade.

Mr. Robert Bias-Ortiz was jogging on the promenade on the day of the incident and was called as a witness at trial. While he was on his jog, he learned from two individuals sitting on a bench ahead of him that Ms. Wallace had fallen into the Harbor. Mr. Bias-Ortiz went to the edge of the promenade and saw Ms. Wallace in the Harbor. He instructed individuals to help Ms. Wallace out of the water. He called 911 and requested emergency medical services. Mr. Bias-Ortiz testified that after Ms. Wallace was pulled out of the water, she was unresponsive to the things being said to her, and that there was a gash in one of her knees and bruising all over her body. She was eventually taken to the...