Politicians have been known to put their feet in their own mouth from time to time. Usually, it makes for good fodder on Twitter; and occasionally on Fox News or MSNBC, depending upon which political party got caught saying something ridiculous. Rarely do the consequences extend beyond a brief media fly-by criticism.
Once in a while, however, an elected official lets something slip that can permanently change his or her career – politically, but also legally.
So it was this past weekend when Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake shocked her City, and the media, by making the following statement to a reporter regarding what she and her Police Department were doing to keep the residents and visitors of Baltimore (including some Red Sox fans) safe during the weekend’s violence:
“It’s a very delicate balancing act. Because while we try to make sure that they were protected from the cars and other, you know, things that were going on, we also gave those who wished to destroy space to do that as well. And we work very hard to keep that balance and to put ourselves in the best position to de-escalate. And that’s what we saw this evening.”Hold on, Mayor, did you just say you gave the rioters space to destroy property?
Not surprisingly, the political news media jumped all over this and questioned if she really meant what she said. To my knowledge, however, no journalist has asked for any reaction from the owners of the local businesses and property which were burnt, looted, destroyed or robbed – in other words, the actual victims of her actions, or rather, inactions. These include national pharmacy chain stores and franchises, as well as locally-owned beauty supply shops and hardware stores. In most cases, these destroyed businesses represent a person’s entire financial livelihood.
If Mayor Rawlings-Blake was speaking truthfully, she may have done more than lose a few votes. She may have set herself up for multiple lawsuits under Maryland’s Local Government Tort Claims Act.
Most states, Massachusetts included, have statutes that grant immunity to cities and towns and their elected representatives for negligent acts that they commit in the course of their official duties. Anything less would subject them to countless lawsuits on a daily basis – after all, you can’t please all of the people all of the time.
Maryland, however, specifically allows a person to sue local government officials who perform their duties negligently. In fact, the statute says that the city must provide a legal defense for the official and cover any judgment against him or her, up to $200,000. Additionally, the city can withhold its defense and make the official pay her own judgment, if he or she acted with “actual malice”, which is defined as “ill will or improper motivation”.
So the question arises: If the Mayor orders her Police Department to allow looters to loot your business, rioters to destroy your property, arsonists to burn your building, and thieves to steal your goods, even for a brief period of time while they blow off some steam, how is that not negligent?
Luckily for the City of Baltimore, the Maryland law limits the total liability for all claimants who have suffered, to $500,000 per incident. The City’s legislative body would be wise to think forward and add this expected line-item to its budget for fiscal year 2016, because the total damages are in the tens of millions, and rising.
Even beyond this expensive bill, however, Monument City can probably say goodbye to future investments by hard-working business owners, who have probably lost faith that their City officials will reasonably, or even minimally, protect their property.
And the people of Baltimore can expect this economic detriment to last at least until after next year – when Rawlings-Blake runs for re-election.
Links:
Lucas Law Group, LLC
Maryland Local Government Tort Claims Act
CBS Baltimore
TAGS:
