Espina v. Prince George's County
215 Md. App. 611
| Md. Ct. Spec. App. | 2013Background
- Espina was shot and killed by off-duty PG County officer Steven Jackson during an incident at Espina’s apartment building; the Espinas sued Jackson and the County for constitutional violations (Art. 24) and state tort claims including wrongful death and assault/battery.
- A 23-day trial produced a jury verdict in favor of the Espinas totaling $11,505,000, with Jackson not subjected to a damages cap but the County’s liability capped under the LGTCA at $200,000 per claim and $500,000 per occurrence.
- The circuit court applied the LGTCA cap to reduce the County’s share of the verdict to $405,000; the Jackson verdict remained intact.
- The Espinas challenged the applicability and constitutionality of the LGTCA damages cap as applied to state constitutional claims (Art. 24), and the County cross-appealed on related evidentiary and procedural issues.
- The Court of Special Appeals held the LGTCA damages cap applies to state constitutional claims, and that its application did not violate Article 19 or the separation of powers; the cap was properly applied with Manuel’s constitutional claim treated as a separate claim.
- The final judgment for the County was affirmed in part and reversed in part, with the County’s liability capped at $400,000 (instead of $405,000) and Jackson’s verdict unchanged.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the LGTCA damages cap apply to constitutional claims? | Espinas: cap applies to constitutional claims as well as common law claims. | County: cap should not apply to constitutional claims or is unconstitutional as applied. | Cap applies to constitutional claims. |
| If the cap applies to constitutional claims, is it constitutional under Article 19? | Cap is consistent with Article 19 as a damages limitation, not a denial of access to courts. | Cap unlawfully restricts remedies for constitutional violations. | Cap does not violate Article 19. |
| Was the LGTCA cap properly applied to reduce the County's liability? | Espinas: the constitutional and wrongful death claims should be treated as separate occurrences/claims with different caps. | County: all claims arising from the same occurrence fall within a single cap; derivative and non-derivative treatments argued. | Cap properly applied: Espina’s and Estela/Manuel wrongful death claims aggregated to $200,000; Manuel’s separate constitutional claim capped at $200,000; total reduced to $400,000 (not $405,000). |
| Other cross-appeal issues (evidentiary and procedural) | Evidence admissibility and verdict form issues supported trial decisions. | Various evidentiary rulings and verdict form criticisms warranted reversal. | Most cross-appeal issues rejected; evidentiary rulings and verdict form findings sustained. |
| Whether Article 24 claim is viable alongside Article 26 under Fourth Amendment standards | Art. 24 claim is analyzed similarly to Article 26 claims using Graham standard. | Argues limited to other framework. | Article 24 claim was properly submitted and analyzed under the Article 26/Fourth Amendment framework. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lee v. Cline, 384 Md. 245, 863 A.2d 297 (2004) (MTCA/constitutional torts immunity within scope of employment; no exception to cap implied)
- Bennett v. Housing Authority, 359 Md. 356, 754 A.2d 367 (2000) (cap not applied to direct actions against local governments when bases are state/governmental law)
- Longtin I, 190 Md.App. 97, 988 A.2d 20 (2010) (discussed broad reach of LGTCA and its amendments post-Bennett)
- Longtin II, 419 Md. 450, 19 A.3d 859 (2011) (analysis of constitutional torts under LGTCA; noted uneasy fit; court endorsed cap application with caveats)
- Murphy v. Edmonds, 325 Md. 342, 601 A.2d 102 (1992) (noneconomic damages cap does not restrict access to courts)
- Ashton v. Brown, 339 Md. 70, 660 A.2d 447 (1995) (no express exception in LGTCA for constitutional torts)
- Hines v. French, 157 Md.App. 536, 852 A.2d 1047 (2004) (same standard for excessive force under Art. 24 as Article 26/Fourth Amendment)
- Okwa v. Harper, Md. (2000) (constitutional excessive force analyzed under Fourth Amendment standard)
- Rounds v. Maryland Nat. Capital Park & Planning Comm’n, Md. App. 214 Md.App. 90, 75 A.3d 987 (2013) (LGTCA notice applicability to state constitutional torts discussed)