Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Towson U campus shooting liability case tossed by MD Supreme Court

Towson University's fall semester begins Aug. 28, and the university has enrolled an inaugural class of doctoral students for its Ph.D. in business analytics, a program at the center of a controversial state commission vote. (The Daily Record/ Maximilian Franz)

File photo of Towson University (The Daily Record/ Maximilian Franz)

Towson U campus shooting liability case tossed by MD Supreme Court

Listen to this article

The dropped a case on Tuesday over Towson University’s liability for an on-campus shooting, stating that it shouldn’t have granted review of the case in the first place.

Less than two weeks after hearing arguments, the court took the unusual step of changing its mind about whether to hear the case. In a brief per curiam order, the court stated that a supermajority of the seven justices agreed that they had decided to hear the case “improvidently.”

The order tossing the case means that TU is not liable for the shooting, and its victories in Circuit Court and the Maryland Appellate Court will stand — though the Supreme Court ordered to pay the costs of the appeal. It also means the state’s high court won’t set precedent on the issue of universities’ liability for acts of violence by third parties on their property.

Then-student Catherine Torney sued the university after she was shot at a late-night party on the central campus square in September 2021. She alleged that the university should have foreseen the risk of violence and done more to prevent it. Two other people were injured.

The dismissed the case, and the Maryland Appellate Court last September affirmed that decision, ruling that the university would only be liable if it had knowledge that would make the imminent harm foreseeable. The opinion was unreported, meaning it can’t be cited as precedent.

Appellate Court Senior Judge James Eyler, who was specially assigned, wrote, “a noisy, large gathering of young people, even one that includes arguments among the attendees, is insufficient to signal that violence might be imminent.”

Torney’s legal team was led by Joseph Cammaratta of Chaikin, Sherman, Cammarata & Siegel in Washington, D.C.

“It’s disappointing,” he said in an interview. “I was looking forward to a favorable decision on behalf of Ms. Torney, but we don’t get that opportunity.”

“I was surprised,” he added. “We’ll never know what the court was thinking on the change of heart. Apparently, they had second thoughts about the importance of this issue.”

The Maryland Office of the Attorney General, which represented the public school, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

This story has been updated with Cammaratta’s quotes.

Networking Calendar

Submit an entry for the business calendar