SIGNIFICANT CASE SUMMARIES

Maryland Case Summary

Mayor & City Council of Baltimore v. Wallace
Maryland Supreme Court
No. 12, Sept. Term, 2024

Decided: July 17, 2025

A local government is not shielded from liability by the Maryland Recreational Use statute when its land, despite being used for recreational activity, is also part of its transportation infrastructure.

Background

In June 2018, Plaintiff was injured on her way home from work, when her bike was wedged in a gap between bricks and granite in the promenade of the Inner Harbor Park. Plaintiff later sued the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore (“City”) for negligence. At trial, the City sought judgment as a matter of law (“JMOL”) based on the Maryland Recreational Use statute (“the Statute”). The Statute grants protection from liability to landowners who make their property available to the public for recreational or educational purposes. The Trial Court denied the City’s JMOL. It held that the Statute was inapplicable because Plaintiff was commuting from work rather than using the promenade for recreational or educational purposes. Judgment was entered in favor of Plaintiff. The City then moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, which the Court denied.

The Appellate Court of Maryland affirmed. It concluded that the Statute did not apply because the promenade was a public-pedestrian walkway and bicycle path that served transportation purposes, and thus not the type of land covered by the Statute. The City appealed to the Maryland Supreme Court, which granted certiorari and affirmed the judgment of the Appellate Court.

Holding

The Supreme Court held that the City established the 2006 Bicycle Master Plan to improve safety and create a transportation system. The promenade where Plaintiff fell was part of this program, and was being used for both recreational and transportation purposes like commuting. In interpreting the Statute, the Court emphasized the Statute’s purpose to encourage landowners to open up their lands for recreational or educational use by providing immunity from liability. However, application of the Statute depends on the character of the land and its intended use. The Court concluded that the Statute does not shield local governments from liability when the property at issue has been made available for transportation purposes despite it also providing recreational activity. Here, since the City incorporated the promenade into its transportation infrastructure, the Statute would not shield it from common law liability.

Questions about this case can be directed to Veronica A. Giron at (443) 641-0557 or vgiron@tthlaw.com.