Background
Cameron Cunningham was arrested at age sixteen in October 2019 and sustained a severe knee injury during the arrest. While in custody of the Department of Juvenile Services, the State allegedly failed to provide court-ordered medical care for his knee injury. Cunningham turned eighteen in November 2021. He filed suit against the State and its agencies under Maryland’s Tort Claims Act (MTCA) for negligence in November 2024—five years after the injury but fewer than three years after reaching majority. The State moved to dismiss based on the MTCA’s three-year filing requirement codified in Maryland Code, State Government Article § 12-106(b)(3), arguing that the filing deadline applied without tolling for his prior minority status. The circuit court granted the motion, holding that even if minority tolling applied to the three-year requirement’s character as a statute of limitations, it did not toll the requirement’s function as a condition precedent to the State’s waiver of sovereign immunity.
The Court’s Holding
The Appellate Court of Maryland reversed, holding that the MTCA’s three-year filing requirement is subject to the minority tolling provision in Maryland Code, Courts & Judicial Proceedings Article § 5-201. The court reconciled the Supreme Court of Maryland’s prior holding in Higginbotham v. Public Service Commission—which deemed the three-year requirement both a statute of limitations and a condition precedent to sovereign immunity waiver—with Maryland’s longstanding principle that minors are legally disabled from filing suit and that statutes of limitations have historically been tolled during minority. Because Cunningham filed his action within three years of turning eighteen, the court concluded his suit was timely filed.
The court emphasized that the tolling protection reflects Maryland law extending back over 500 years: a minor cannot be twice victimized by losing a claim because parents failed to file before the minor reached adulthood. The court also noted that the General Assembly, in amending the MTCA in 1994, explicitly stated its purpose was to make the MTCA’s limitations period “consistent with the general statute of limitations” under the general three-year rule, which already incorporated minority tolling. Requiring minors to file within three years of injury—before they could sue on their own—would contradict that legislative intent and Maryland public policy protecting juveniles’ access to courts.
Key Takeaways
- Minority tolling applies to the MTCA’s three-year filing requirement even though that requirement also serves as a condition precedent to the State’s waiver of sovereign immunity.
- The filing period for MTCA claims against the State does not begin running until a plaintiff turns eighteen; suit must then be filed within three years of that date.
- The State retains protection through the one-year administrative claim requirement under § 12-106(b)(1), which remains a non-tolled condition precedent.
- Maryland courts will not permit an injured child to be “twice victimized”—once by the tortfeasor and again by losing the right to sue due to parental inaction during minority.
Why It Matters
This decision protects children injured by state actors or employees from forfeiting their claims due to circumstances entirely beyond their control. Minors cannot sue on their own, so they depend on parents or guardians to file claims within any applicable deadline. Applying an unyielding three-year deadline from the date of injury—potentially before the child reaches majority—would effectively strip minors of their statutory right to recover from the State. The court balanced two competing sovereigns: the State’s interest in finality and notice (preserved by the unchanged one-year administrative claim requirement) and the minor’s fundamental right to access courts and seek remedy for tortious injury.
The ruling also signals that when the Maryland legislature aligns a Tort Claims Act provision with the general statute of limitations framework, the entire framework—including its tolling doctrines—carries forward. Courts interpreting similar sovereign immunity waivers in other jurisdictions face this same tension and will find persuasive authority in Cunningham’s reasoning.