Hansen v. City of Laurel
25 A.3d 122
| Md. | 2011Background
- Hansen sued the City of Laurel, challenging the pre-suit notice requirement of the 2007 LGTCA iteration.
- Hansen allegedly delivered written notice to the City Administrator within 180 days after his injury.
- The LGTCA requires notice to the proper recipient (county attorney or corporate authorities) depending on jurisdiction.
- The City moved to dismiss for failure to plead LGTCA notice satisfaction; Hansen opposed, attaching notices showing administrative filings.
- The circuit court granted the motion to dismiss; the Court of Special Appeals affirmed; this Court granted certiorari.
- The majority held that Hansen failed to plead satisfaction of the LGTCA notice in his complaint; it affirmed dismissal; the dissent would have allowed amendment to cure the pleading defect.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is LGTCA notice a condition precedent to suit against a local government? | Hansen's claim aligns with longstanding precedent that notice is a condition precedent. | Notice is a prerequisite; failure to plead defeats the action. | Yes, notice is a condition precedent. |
| Must a plaintiff plead satisfaction of the LGTCA notice in the complaint? | Pleadings should reflect compliance; or allow amendment if needed. | Pleading compliance is required to proceed. | Yes, satisfaction must be pled in the complaint. |
| Did Hansen's delivery to the City Administrator constitute substantial compliance? | Delivery to the appropriate city official within 180 days should suffice. | The recipient must be the proper statutory notice entity, not the City Administrator. | Court did not reach substantial-compliance merits; held pleading defect warranted dismissal. |
| If pleading defect exists, should the court grant leave to amend? | Amendment should be allowed to cure technical defects when possible. | Amendment was not sought; dismissal appropriate absent leave to amend. | Court declined to remand with leave to amend; dismissal affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rios v. Montgomery County, 386 Md. 104 (2005) (notice requirements are a condition precedent to suit against a local government)
- Faulk v. Ewing, 371 Md. 284 (2002) (substantial compliance when proper unit receives notice and begins investigation)
- Neuenschwander v. Washington Suburban Sanitary Comm'n, 187 Md. 67 (1946) (notice must be alleged as a condition precedent to maintain suit)
- Moore v. Norouzi, 371 Md. 154 (2002) (substantial compliance when proper agency has actual knowledge within statutory period)
- Hall v. Barlow, Corp., 255 Md. 28 (1969) (liberal leave to amend to promote justice; amend to reach merits)
- Engle v. Cumberland, 180 Md. 465 (1942) (notice provisions interpreted as condition precedent to suit against municipal bodies)