The Maryland Supreme Court issued an opinion reinforcing the scope of governmental immunity for local governments making discretionary design decisions about public infrastructure. In *Mayor & City Council of Baltimore v. Sanjeev Varghese*, the court held that Baltimore's design choices regarding barriers between vehicular access roads and pedestrian promenades constitute governmental functions protected by common law immunity.
Chief Justice Fader wrote the majority opinion in the case, which was argued on Oct. 7, 2025, and decided on Dec. 23, 2025. The ruling clarifies a critical distinction in Maryland law between governmental and proprietary functions that determines when municipalities can claim immunity from lawsuits.
The case arose from Circuit Court for Baltimore City case number 24-C-21-002622, involving plaintiff Sanjeev Varghese's claims against the city. While the court documents do not detail the specific facts that led to the litigation, the legal issue centered on whether Baltimore's decisions about infrastructure design qualified for governmental immunity protection.
Under Maryland common law, local governments enjoy immunity only when performing governmental functions, not when acting in a proprietary capacity. This distinction has significant implications for municipal liability, as governmental immunity can shield cities from damages in tort lawsuits related to policy and design decisions.
The court's holding establishes that discretionary design decisions about public safety infrastructure fall squarely within the governmental function category. Specifically, the court ruled that choices about erecting barriers between vehicular access roads and pedestrian promenades are the type of policy judgments that warrant immunity protection.
This ruling builds on established Maryland precedent recognizing that certain municipal activities deserve special protection when they involve core governmental responsibilities. Design decisions about public infrastructure, particularly those related to traffic flow and pedestrian safety, require municipalities to balance competing interests and make policy judgments about resource allocation and public welfare.
The governmental versus proprietary function test has been a cornerstone of Maryland municipal immunity law for decades. Governmental functions typically include activities like law enforcement, fire protection, public health measures, and infrastructure planning that serve broad public purposes. Proprietary functions, by contrast, involve commercial or business-like activities where municipalities compete with private entities.
By placing infrastructure design decisions firmly in the governmental category, the Maryland Supreme Court provides clarity for both municipalities and potential plaintiffs about when immunity applies. This distinction helps ensure that local governments can make necessary policy decisions about public safety and infrastructure without fear of liability for every discretionary choice.
The ruling has practical implications for how municipalities approach infrastructure planning and design. Cities can now proceed with greater confidence that their discretionary decisions about traffic control measures, pedestrian safety features, and similar infrastructure elements will receive immunity protection in Maryland courts.
Justice Killough filed an opinion that both concurred with and dissented from portions of the majority decision, though the specific nature of the disagreement is not detailed in the available court documents. Such mixed opinions often signal nuanced legal issues where justices agree on the outcome but differ on reasoning or scope.
The timing of this decision, coming near the end of 2025, provides important guidance for Maryland municipalities as they plan infrastructure projects and assess potential liability exposure. Local governments can now rely on this precedent when making design choices about public safety features and traffic control measures.
For practitioners representing either municipalities or injury plaintiffs, the decision reinforces the importance of the governmental-proprietary distinction in Maryland tort law. Attorneys must carefully analyze whether challenged municipal conduct involves core governmental functions or more commercial activities when evaluating immunity claims.
The *Varghese* decision joins a body of Maryland case law defining the contours of municipal immunity. While providing protection for discretionary design decisions, the ruling maintains the established framework requiring case-by-case analysis of whether specific municipal activities qualify as governmental functions.
Looking ahead, this precedent may influence similar cases involving municipal infrastructure decisions throughout Maryland. The court's clear statement that design decisions about vehicular-pedestrian barriers constitute governmental functions provides a framework for analyzing comparable infrastructure choices.
The decision ultimately balances competing policy interests: protecting municipal decision-making autonomy while preserving accountability for truly commercial activities. By maintaining this distinction, Maryland courts continue to recognize that effective local government requires some protection from liability for policy judgments while ensuring municipalities remain accountable when acting like private businesses.