Opinion ID: 1436612
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Maryland Tort Claims Act Allegations of Malice or Gross Negligence Against Barbre

Text: Pope also alleged that Barbre acted maliciously and with gross negligence and argues before us that this brings Barbre outside of the protections of the immunity and non-liability provisions of the MTCA and that he should be able to proceed against Barbre individually on those claims. Conversely, Barbre contends that the MTCA is not contingent upon the plaintiff's pleadings, so the fact that Pope alleged that Barbre acted with malice or gross negligence is immaterial. The Court of Special Appeals agreed with Pope in its holding that [w]hen, as in this case, the claimant pursues tort remedies against an individual classified as State personnel, based on acts allegedly committed with malice or gross negligence, the claims fall outside the MTCA and the State Treasurer does not require early notice, Pope, 172 Md.App. at 414, 915 A.2d at 462; we disagree only to the extent that we have said that state personnel are not immune from suit and liability in tort when the plaintiff's complaint sufficiently alleges malice or gross negligence. Therefore, the gravamen on this issue is whether the allegations of malice or gross negligence against Barbre are sufficient.