May 2024 - Parks & Recreation - 32

LAW REVIEW
Plaintiff Jamie Wallace asserted the
MRUS does not shield the City from
liability for negligently allowing a
dangerous condition to exist on a
walkway.
in this particular case, it was " undisputed
that Wallace fell in an area in
the Inner Harbor Park which is within
the Waterfront Promenade and
is maintained by the City's Department
of Transportation. " Moreover,
the court found " the Waterfront
Promenade is a public pedestrian
walkway and shared-use bicycle path
that functions as a waterfront sidewalk
and stretches eight miles. " As
described by the appeals court, " the
City's establishment of the Waterfront
Management District in 2007
and adoption of the City's Bicycle
Master Plan in 2006 changed the nature
of the promenade " :
In 2006, the City's Department
the scope and applicability of the
MRUS " must be strictly construed
with common law principles in
mind. " As a result, Wallace contended
the Waterfront Promenade was
" not automatically brought within
the scope of the MRUS just because
the City designated it as a park. "
In so doing, Wallace argued
these " public ways that go through
parks are still the City's responsibility
under Maryland common
law, " including the Promenade in
Harbor Park. Wallace, therefore,
asserted the MRUS does not shield
the City from liability for negligently
allowing a dangerous condition
to exist on a walkway.
Promenade Recreational
Purpose?
Even if the MRUS was applicable,
Wallace further argued the City would
not be immune from liability because
the City had not made the Baltimore
Waterfront Promenade available to
the public " for " any recreational purpose
based upon " the nature of the
32 Parks & Recreation | MAY 2 0 2 4 | PARK S ANDRECRE AT ION . OR G
promenade. " In particular, Wallace
claimed the " waterfront sidewalk "
was " an intrinsic part of the business
and economic development " and,
therefore, " the nature of the promenade
is sufficient to establish that the
City did not make the land available
'for' a recreational purpose. "
In addition, Wallace contended
" the nature of her activity on the
promenade was not for a recreational
purpose because she was
commuting home from work when
her injury occurred, and commuting
is not typically recreation. "
In examining whether the maintenance
of the promenade was an
immune governmental function, the
appeals court acknowledged " the
mere physical location of the passageway
within the park does not of
itself decide the function. " Instead,
the court noted: " The use of a particular
facility is a determining factor. "
Alternative Transportation
Connector
In the opinion of the appeals court,
of Planning implemented a Master
Bike Plan, which permitted
bicycles in the promenade at all
hours of the day to provide additional
access to serve users who
sought " an alternative to streets
like Boston and Key Highway, or
who are traveling to or from waterfront
destinations such as residences,
yachts, restaurants, and places
of employment. " Department of
Transportation, City of Baltimore
Bicycle Master Plan 30-31 (2006).
In addition, the appeals court
noted this eight-mile stretch includes
" all Public Access Corridors
as designed in an Urban Renewal
Plan or other controlling document
and as new sections may be opened
beyond these locations. " Department
of Recreation and Parks,
Rules and Regulations of the City
of Baltimore 26 (2013).
In light of the City's Charter,
Rules and Regulations, Master
Bike Plan and evidence regarding
the promenade's usage, the appeals
court,
therefore, concluded " the
property serves as a public connector
to other parts of the City. " As
May 2024 - Parks & Recreation

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of May 2024 - Parks & Recreation
