The Maryland Tort Claims Act (“MTCA”) waives the State’s sovereign immunity in tort actions.[1] However, there is a catch – “[the] liability of the state and its units may not exceed $400,000 to a single claimant for injuries arising from a single incident or occurrence.”^[2] The definition of a “single incident or occurrence” has not been defined by MTCA or any other legislation.^[3] The Supreme Court of Maryland will decide whether to adopt a narrow or broad interpretation of “single incident or occurrence” under the MTCA, and in doing so, they will also decide whether the $400,000 cap is strictly applied or if plaintiffs suing the State have the opportunity to recover over $400,000 for multiple instances caused by that negligence under the same claim.^[4]

In State v. Young, the Appellate Court of Maryland adopted a broad interpretation of a “single incident or occurrence,” allowing the plaintiff, Michael Young, to recover $800,000 for two distinct incidents in a civil lawsuit against the State of Maryland rather than the cap of $400,000 in place for a single incident.^[5]  Michael Young brought an action for negligence against the State of Maryland, Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services, and personnel of the correctional facility after the Warden and an officer breached their duty of care and failed to protect Young from two consecutive attacks by fellow inmates.^[6] The State appealed, and on July 25, 2025, the Supreme Court of Maryland granted certiorari.^[7] The primary question before the Supreme Court of Maryland is whether the Appellate Court of Maryland erred in finding that the two attacks on Young comprised two separate “incidents” or “occurrences” in the meaning of MTCA, therefore exposing the State to liability for $800,000.^[8] The Supreme Court of Maryland’s decision will have a significant impact on potential recovery under MTCA.

The Appellate Court of Maryland’s interpretation of “single incident or occurrence,” if adopted by the Supreme Court of Maryland, will allow plaintiffs to recover for repeated instances of negligence that a narrow interpretation would otherwise bar.^[9] In doing so, the Supreme Court of Maryland would hold the State of Maryland accountable for these negligent acts, thereby allowing more opportunities for plaintiffs to recover. However, with this finding, the court may complicate the application of the MTCA and limit sovereign immunity protections.[10]

Alternatively, the court may find that the State’s negligence constituted a single incident. Under the “substantially similar” Local Government Claims Act (“LGTCA”), a single incident or occurrence may “encompass all claims stemming from one proximate cause [or] may be defined as the event which triggers liability[.]”^[11] The Supreme Court of Maryland may find that the interpretation of a “single occurrence” as including “continuous and repeated acts” under the LGTCA is persuasive, and that the circumstances in Young stem from one event.^[12] If the court adopts a broad interpretation of the MTCA damage cap, it could discourage settlements and open the floodgates to litigation.^[13] Increased litigation costs and potential for recovery against the state are likely to disrupt the state’s budget.^[14]

Ultimately, while there are risks to adopting a broad interpretation of “single incident or occurrence,” the Supreme Court of Maryland should do so to preserve the rights of the people and hold the State of Maryland fully accountable for its negligence.^[15]  By evaluating the facts on a case-by-case basis to establish whether a “single incident or occurrence” exists, as the Appellate Court of Maryland did in its analysis, the court can address any issues that arise regarding the limits or extent of the definition.^[16] While establishing a bright-line rule would certainly lead to consistent results, it would contradict the subjective nature of tort law and significantly restrict potential for recovery.^[17] A broad interpretation would not invalidate sovereign immunity; rather, it would balance the people’s right to “petition the Government for a redress of grievances” with the state’s right to protect itself against lawsuits.^[18]

Efforts to eliminate or raise MTCA’s damage cap have been a topic of “extensive debate” in the Maryland legislature, yet a solution has not yet come to fruition.^[19] Consequently, the Supreme Court of Maryland must decide how strictly to apply the cap by interpreting the legislative history.^[20] Marylanders deserve justice and adequate compensation for the full scope of the state’s negligence.^[21] The decision of the Supreme Court of Maryland could very well set the tone for future decisions regarding the flexibility of recovery under MTCA and therefore have a lasting impact on the wellbeing of injured Marylanders for years to come.^[22]

---

Arden Perry is a second-year evening student at the University of Baltimore School of Law and a First-Year Staff Editor for Law Forum. She earned her Bachelor of Science in Community Health from the University of Maryland, College Park. Arden works with a non-profit organization in the community health realm to develop trauma-informed trainings for facilitators. At the law school, she is a teaching assistant for the Introduction to Lawyering Skills course. Arden is employed at a personal injury firm doing plaintiff work full-time. She expects to graduate in May 2028.

[1] Md. Code Ann., State Gov’t Art. § 12-104(a)(1) (West 2021).

[2] Md. Code Ann., State Gov’t Art. § 12-104(a)(2) (West 2021).

[3] State v. Young, 333 A.3d 610, 632 (Md. App. 2025), cert. granted, No. 106, SEPT. TERM, 2025, 2025 WL 2254002 (2025).

[4] Petitions for Writ of Certiorari – July, 2025, Md. Cts. (Sep. 8, 2025, 9:51 PM), https://www.mdcourts.gov/scm/petitions/202507petitions (on file with the University of Baltimore Law Forum).

[5] Young, 333 A.3d at 616.

[6] Id. at 629, 632-33(Young was first attacked by a group of inmates with weapons in his cell, and after escaping, Young was ambushed again by a second group of inmates in the recreation hall. The Appellate Court of Maryland interpreted the attacks as two distinct “incidents or occurrences,” holding that their inquiry was driven by the evidence of trial showing there were two separate groups of attackers and the first attack had entirely seized before the second began).

[7] Md. Cts., supra note 4.

[8] Id.

[9] Young, 333 A.3d at 633.

[10] Compare U.S. Const. amend. I (interpreted to allow individuals the right to file lawsuits), with U.S. Const. amend. XI (restricts ability to sue a state in federal court without the state’s consent).

[11] Id. (quoting Bd. of County Comm’rs v. Marcas, L.L.C., 4 A.3d 946, 954 (Md. App. 2010)).

[12] Young, 333 A.3d at 632.

[13] Dept. of Legis. Services, Noneconomic Damages Report, S. 447, 2025 Sess., at 10 (2025) https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/meeting_material/2025/jud%20-%20133814321162478626%20-%20Dept.%20Legislative%20Services%20-%20Noneconomic%20Damages%20Report%201-14-2025.pdf (on file with the University of Baltimore Law Forum) (“Altering the cap would lead to more frequent excessive verdicts and increased litigation costs[.]”).

[14] See id. at 1 (“During [Maryland’s] 2024 legislative session, there was extensive debate over whether to repeal or raise the cap on noneconomic damages. Proponents of the cap argue it is necessary to prevent high insurance costs and excessive payouts[.]”); Michael D. Contino & Andreas Kuersten, The Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA): A Legal Overview, at 2 (2023), https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R45732 (explaining that exposing the federal government to tort liability creates a significant financial cost to the United States).

[15] Young, 333 A.3d at 632.

[16] Id. at 633.

[17] Bright-Line Rule, Legal Information Institute, https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/bright-line_rule (on file with the University of Baltimore Law Forum) (last visited Oct. 27, 2025).

[18] Compare U.S. Const. amend. I (interpreted to allow individuals the right to file lawsuits), with U.S. Const. amend. XI (restricts ability to sue a state in federal court without the state’s consent).

[19] Dept. of Legis. Services, Noneconomic Damages Report, S. 447, 2025 Sess. at 1, 7-9 (2025) https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/meeting_material/2025/jud%20-%20133814321162478626%20-%20Dept.%20Legislative%20Services%20-%20Noneconomic%20Damages%20Report%201-14-2025.pdf (on file with the University of Baltimore Law Forum) (detailing the history of legislative efforts to alter or discard of the Maryland Tort Claims Act damages cap).

[20] Young, 333 A.3d at 632 (“single incident or occurrence” has not been defined by MTCA or any other legislation).

[21] Id.

[22] Dept. of Legis. Services, Noneconomic Damages Report, S. 447, 2025 Sess. at 1, 7-9 (2025) https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/meeting_material/2025/jud%20-%20133814321162478626%20-%20Dept.%20Legislative%20Services%20-%20Noneconomic%20Damages%20Report%201-14-2025.pdf (on file with the University of Baltimore Law Forum) (future of changes to Maryland Tort Claims Act damage cap through legislation is uncertain).