Negligence: Cogle v. PG County

The Baltimore Medical Malpractice Lawyer Blog examines issues in civil cases from Maryland appellate court opinions. In this post the issue is whether intentional conduct precludes a claim for ordinary negligence. Also, whether a claim for gross negligence can survive when an ordinary negligence claim has been dismissed. The case is Cogle v. Prince George’s County, Maryland, et al., No. 1361, September Term, 2025 (filed October 14, 2026). The Appellate Court of Maryland issued this unreported opinion.

Factual Background

This dispute arose from a roadway confrontation between a commuter and an off-duty patrol officer. The individual defendant was driving his personal truck home from an overnight shift while still wearing his police uniform. The plaintiff testified that the individual defendant drove up rapidly behind her. He matched her speeds, and pulled his truck dangerously close to her vehicle. She felt as though the driver was attempting to force her off the road. When both vehicles came to a stop at a red traffic light, the plaintiff stepped out of her car to demand an explanation and record his license plate.

In response to her approach, the individual defendant drew his service weapon. The plaintiff testified that he rested the firearm on the steering wheel. He then aimed it directly at her face, and used harsh threats. In contrast, the individual defendant claimed that he drew the weapon defensively because he feared for his safety. He testified that he pointed the weapon toward the floorboard and driver’s window during a fluid motion rather than intentionally aiming at her.

The plaintiff subsequently initiated a civil lawsuit in the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County against the driver and his employer. She asserted counts for ordinary negligence, gross negligence, excessive force, and related torts. At trial, at the close of the plaintiff’s case, the trial court dismissed both the negligence and gross negligence counts as a matter of law. The trial court concluded that intentional acts cannot form the basis of negligence. The trial judge also ruled that a gross negligence claim cannot stand without an ordinary negligence claim. The jury then considered the excessive force claim and ruled against the plaintiff.

Parties’ Arguments

On appeal, the plaintiff argued that Maryland law allows intentional acts to support a negligence action if the ultimate harm or consequence was unintended. She emphasized that the jury could find that the defendant did not intend the emotional and psychological trauma caused by his actions. She also pointed out that the defendant himself testified that he did not intend to point the gun at her. In addition, the plaintiff asserted that gross negligence represents an independent tort involving reckless disregard or utter indifference to safety. She argued that this heightened tort of gross negligence does not depend upon the survival of an ordinary negligence claim.

Conversely, the individual defendant asserted that the plaintiff failed to establish a negligence cause of action because the underlying conduct was entirely deliberate. He argued that pointing a firearm and confronting a pedestrian constitute an intentional assault rather than negligent behavior. He also maintained that he acted strictly in self-defense and adhered to his standard police training. Regarding gross negligence, the individual defendant argued that his conduct lacked wanton disregard or deliberate intent to inflict harm. Meanwhile, the local government employer argued that governmental immunity protected it from liability because the driver acted outside the scope of his municipal employment.

The Court’s Ruling on Ordinary & Gross Negligence

The Appellate Court of Maryland reversed the trial court’s grant of judgment on both counts. The court explained that an intentional act can indeed sustain an ordinary negligence claim if the act produces an unintended consequence. The court noted that a jury could reasonably find that the driver intentionally unholstered his weapon or operated his vehicle aggressively, yet did not intend to cause the plaintiff’s lasting emotional distress. Furthermore, the driver’s own testimony that he did not intend to aim the firearm directly at the plaintiff created a factual dispute regarding whether his actions were unintentional.

Next, the appellate court rejected the trial court’s premise that gross negligence cannot exist without ordinary negligence. The court reaffirmed that gross negligence is an independent cause of action. It requires wanton, willful, or utterly indifferent conduct toward the rights of others. The legal definitions of ordinary negligence and gross negligence are distinct. Thus, a party can maintain a gross negligence claim even when ordinary negligence is not established. Therefore, both claims should have been submitted to the jury for factual evaluation.

Commentary by Baltimore Medical Malpractice Lawyer Mark Kopec: Navigating the Interplay of Ordinary & Gross Negligence

Litigators must approach the border between ordinary negligence and gross negligence with precision. In many civil actions, defense attorneys can attempt to force plaintiffs into an artificial box. When evidence demonstrates willful, aggressive, or glaringly reckless behavior, defendants may move to dismiss negligence counts by arguing that the underlying conduct was purely intentional. Counsel can defeat this trap by emphasizing the distinction between an intentional physical act and an intentional injury.

Under Maryland law, the intent to do an act does not automatically extinguish a claim for negligence. Trial attorneys must demonstrate that even if someone chose a specific course of action, the harm that resulted was an unintended consequence of that breach. By establishing that the resulting injury was unforeseen or unintended by the actor, counsel can preserve ordinary negligence claims against premature dismissal.

Furthermore, practitioners must understand that gross negligence is not merely “big negligence”. Instead, it requires evidence showing that a party acted with utter indifference or conscious disregard for human life and safety. Gross negligence requires a distinct mental state of reckless indifference. Therefore, it does not legally depend on the survival of an ordinary negligence claim. When pleading and arguing these claims, lawyers should present parallel theories in the alternative. Counsel should develop specific evidence illustrating the breach of ordinary care alongside clear evidence showing an utter disregard for safety or human rights.

Analyzing Plaintiff’s Prospects on Remand

Although the plaintiff secured a complete appellate victory that revived her ordinary negligence and gross negligence claims, her prospects before a new jury remain uncertain. She does have additional theories to present, including the lower standard of ordinary negligence. However, the jury heard the live testimony of both parties. It evaluated the dash and street video recordings, and returned a defense verdict on excessive force.

That defense verdict may suggest that the initial jury either credited the driver’s self-defense explanation or concluded that displaying the weapon was an objectively reasonable response to an approaching, angry individual. If a jury has already determined that drawing the weapon was not an unreasonable or excessive use of force, convincing a second jury that the exact same encounter was wrongful may prove challenging.

You an read the reblog posts on issues involving Causes of Action.

Mark Kopec is a top-rated Baltimore medical malpractice lawyer. Contact us at 800-604-0704 to speak directly with Attorney Kopec in a free consultation. The Kopec Law Firm is in Baltimore and helps clients throughout Maryland and Washington, D.C. Thank you for reading the Baltimore Medical Malpractice Lawyer Blog.