Baltimore jury awards $1M after incarcerated man injured in state van ride

A Baltimore jury last week awarded a verdict of over a million dollars to a formerly incarcerated man who says he was injured during a ride in a state-operated van that had no seats or seatbelts, forcing him to sit on milk crates in the back.

Thiwite DeChamps, 47, was soon to be released from prison in 2023 when he was driven with other inmates to a work site. The van reportedly took a sharp right turn, throwing DeChamps into the van’s back door, which opened. He fell into the street, hit his head on the pavement, was knocked unconscious, broke his hand and sustained other injuries, according to the complaint. He also alleged the Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services failed to provide timely follow-up care, resulting in permanent loss of mobility. He sued in Baltimore City Circuit Court in December 2024.

“This was never a complicated case,” DeChamps’ lawyer, Allen Honick of Furman Honick Law, wrote in a statement. “The state transported human beings in a cargo van without seats or seatbelts, and Mr. DeChamps suffered a permanent injury as a result. This verdict affirms that every person in state custody is entitled to basic safety and dignity.”

On Friday, the jury awarded him $1.05 million for noneconomic damages, but he won’t receive the full amount. Under the Maryland Tort Claims Act, the state’s liability is capped at $400,000.

The Maryland Office of the Attorney General declined to comment. The Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services acknowledged a request for comment but did not provide one.

On the last day of the trial, Drew Gilbert, a lawyer for the department, argued that DeChamps hadn’t proven his injuries were the result of negligence by the state. The state argued in a motion to dismiss that DeChamps had failed to plead allegations with specificity, noting that he didn’t allege the driver was speeding. The state also argued that his complaint didn’t articulate the safety measures the department failed to take. The motion to dismiss was denied.

At closing arguments, Honick said the driving wasn’t the issue; it was the lack of seats and seatbelts and the failure to secure the back door. He said his client was “on the doorstep of being released” and wouldn’t risk his freedom by attempting to escape the van, as the state had suggested.

“The negligence happened before the van even left,” Honick said during his closing argument.