Opinion ID: 1997453
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Malice & The Local Government Tort Claims Act

Text: On cross-appeal, Forrest argues that the Court of Special Appeals erred in holding that there was insufficient evidence to support a finding that Houghton acted with malice. See Houghton, 183 Md. App. at 26-30, 959 A.2d at 822-25. We hold that because of the operation of the Local Government Tort Claims Act, there is no need for this Court to reach the malice issue. See CJ §§ 5-301 to -99. The LGTCA limits liability, provides for indemnification, and establishes procedural requirements relating to suits against officials of local government authorities. It expressly applies to suits against employees of the BCPD. See CJ § 5-301(d)(21) (defining the BCPD as [l]ocal government for the purposes of the act). In this case, it ensures that the BCPD will be liable for the judgment against Houghton. The LGTCA states in part that, except with respect to punitive damages, a local government shall be liable for any judgment against its employee for damages resulting from tortious acts within the employee's scope of employment. CJ § 5-303(b)(1). We have previously held that the test for determining whether acts were within the scope of employment is whether the challenged acts were in furtherance of the employer's business and could be fairly termed incident to the performance of duties entrusted to the employee. See Ennis v. Crenca, 322 Md. 285, 293-94, 587 A.2d 485, 489-90 (1991). That is surely the case here, as Houghton's arrest of Forrest was incident to his general authority as a police officer. His actions would therefore be within the scope of his employment regardless. The LGTCA thus ensures that the BCPD is liable for the judgment against Houghton. [5] During oral argument counsel for Forrest stated that his client sought only to obtain a judgment collectable against BCPD. Once we have made this determination, Forrest's claim has been adjudicated. Although Section 5-302 of the LGTCA allows the BCPD to seek indemnification from Houghton if he acted with malice, the legal relationship between Houghton and the BCPD is not at issue in this case. See CJ § 5-302(b)(2). We therefore need not determine it; if the BCPD elects to pursue Houghton for indemnification at a later date, an assessment of Houghton's malice or lack thereof can be addressed during those proceedings.