WASHINGTON, D.C. — Chaikin, Sherman, Cammarata & Siegel, P.C. senior partner Joseph Cammarata appeared before the Supreme Court of Maryland on April 9, 2026, to present oral argument in Catherine Torney v. Towson University — a premises liability case with significant implications for landowner duty, campus safety, and the legal standard of foreseeability in Maryland.
The case arises from a September 2021 shooting at Towson University in which Catherine Torney, a student, was one of three people injured during an unsanctioned late-night gathering in Freedom Square, a common area at the center of campus. The party grew from approximately 100 to 400 attendees as conditions escalated. There was underage drinking, cannabis use, and increasing unruliness. The DJ stopped the music and attempted to calm the crowd. Two of the four Towson University police officers on scene recommended shutting the event down. The university president and chief of police directed officers to stand down. Shortly after, gunfire erupted.
Ms. Torney sued the university for negligence, alleging in her complaint that campus police had the opportunity and the obligation to intervene and chose not to do so.The Baltimore County Circuit Court dismissed the case. The Appellate Court of Maryland affirmed that decision. The Supreme Court of Maryland agreed to hear the appeal.
Mr. Cammarata, arguing on behalf of Ms. Torney alongside co-counsel Stephen Ollar, challenged the lower courts’ application of Maryland premises liability law on two fronts.
First, he argued that both sides had treated Ms. Torney as an invitee — a legal status requiring the highest duty of care from a landowner — throughout the entire litigation, from the trial court through the petition for certiorari. The university raised the argument that she should be reclassified as a bare licensee for the first time before the Supreme Court. Mr. Cammarata contended this reclassification was improper at this stage.
Second, and centrally, Mr. Cammarata pressed the court on the standard of foreseeability. Under Maryland law, the question is not whether a landowner can predict the specific mechanism of injury, but whether the harm falls within what courts have described as the “general field of danger.” He argued that the university was attempting to narrow foreseeability to the point where it required direct, physical sight of a weapon or a specific threat — a standard he said has never been the law in Maryland.
“Did we have to know that a gun was going to be used? No. Was it within the general field of danger that she was going to be harmed under the facts of this case? Yes. Does it matter the mechanism? No. Does it matter the instrumentality? No,” Cammarata told the court during his rebuttal. “And therefore, this case should proceed to allow Ms. Torney to develop the facts.”
Mr. Cammarata also pointed to the university’s own post-incident investigation, in which the supervising corporal on duty was suspended for failing to contact Baltimore County police for backup and for failing to intervene — facts he argued validate Ms. Torney’s position that the circumstances called for action.
The justices engaged extensively with both sides, questioning the implications of the ruling for unsanctioned events on university property, fraternity parties, post-game celebrations, and the broader question of when the presence of law enforcement at an event gives rise to a duty to act. One justice raised the potential applicability of the state-created danger doctrine — a legal theory not formally briefed in the case but implicated by the facts.
The Supreme Court of Maryland’s opinion is expected later this year. If the court rules in Ms. Torney’s favor, her lawsuit will be permitted to resume in the Baltimore County Circuit Court.
Mr. Cammarata is a dual board-certified civil trial attorney with more than four decades of experience. He was selected as a Class of 2026 Virginia Lawyers Hall of Fame Honoree by Virginia Lawyers Weekly and was named the 2025 Trial Lawyer of the Year by the Trial Lawyers Association of Metropolitan Washington, D.C. He is nationally recognized for his role as lead counsel in Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681 (1997) — a unanimous United States Supreme Court decision establishing that a sitting president may be sued in civil court while in office. He co-founded the Brain Injury Association of D.C. and authored the District of Columbia’s Athletic Concussion Protection Act of 2011.
The full oral argument is available on the Supreme Court of Maryland’s website. WBAL-TV also reported on the case.
For more information, visit https://www.chaikinandsherman.com or contact the firm at (202) 659-8600.
CASE INFORMATION
Supreme Court of Maryland, Annapolis, MD (on appeal from Baltimore County Circuit Court)
Catherine Torney v. Towson University
Case No. 53
Chaikin, Sherman, Cammarata & Siegel, P.C. is a Washington, D.C. personal injury law firm founded in 1969 that represents individuals and families in serious personal injury, medical malpractice, wrongful death, and premises liability cases across Washington, D.C., Maryland, and Virginia. The firm has recovered over $1 billion in compensation for its clients and is consistently recognized by U.S. News & World Report as a "Best Law Firm," by Best Lawyers in America, Super Lawyers, and Washingtonian Magazine. All three senior active partners are past presidents of the Trial Lawyers Association of Metropolitan Washington, D.C. The firm represents clients on a contingency-fee basis.
Chaikin, Sherman, Cammarata & Siegel Personal Injury Lawyers - Washington, D.C.
1232 17th Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036
4806528652
https://www.chaikinandsherman.com
Press Contact : Sean McNamara
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-bKiVUos1I
Distributed by Law Firm Newswire