WASHINGTON, D.C. — Chaikin, Sherman, Cammarata & Siegel, P.C. partner Joseph Cammarata argued before the Supreme Court of Maryland on April 9, 2026, in Catherine Torney v. Towson University — a premises liability case that could significantly shape the legal obligations of landowners, including universities, to protect individuals from foreseeable harm on their property.
The case arose from a September 3, 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 intended as a space for expression and assembly. Towson University police officers were present at the event but did not intervene as the crowd grew from approximately 100 to 400 people and conditions escalated. There was underage drinking, cannabis smoke in the air, and growing unruliness. At one point, the DJ stopped the music entirely and attempted to calm the crowd. Two of the four officers on scene recommended shutting the party down. The university president and the chief of police directed officers to stand down. Shortly after, gunfire erupted.
Ms. Torney sued the university for negligence, alleging that campus police had the opportunity and the obligation to act — and chose not to. The Baltimore County Circuit Court dismissed the case, and the Appellate Court of Maryland affirmed that decision. The Supreme Court of Maryland agreed to hear the appeal.
The Legal Question: When Does a Landowner’s Duty to Act Begin?
The case asks whether the lower courts incorrectly applied Maryland premises liability law when they concluded that Towson University owed no duty of care to Ms. Torney. Two issues dominated the oral argument before the Supreme Court.
The first is the standard of care owed to Ms. Torney based on her legal status on the property. Throughout the lower court proceedings, both parties treated Ms. Torney as an “invitee” — a designation that requires landowners to exercise reasonable and ordinary care to keep their premises safe. At the Supreme Court level, the university argued for the first time that because the party was unsanctioned, attendees should be classified as “bare licensees,” to whom a significantly lower duty is owed. Mr. Cammarata challenged this reclassification directly, arguing that both sides had litigated the entire case — from the trial court through the petition for certiorari — on the premise that Ms. Torney was an invitee. That status, he argued, was not in question until the university raised it before the state’s highest court. As he put it to the justices: she was a student, she was in a common area, and she had a right to be on that campus.
The second — and central — issue is foreseeability. Under Maryland law, the question is not whether a landowner can predict the exact way someone gets hurt, but whether the harm falls within what courts have described as the “general field of danger” that the circumstances present. Mr. Cammarata pressed this distinction hard, arguing that the university was attempting to narrow the definition of foreseeability to the point where it meant nothing more than direct, physical sight of a specific threat. As he framed it for the court: the university wants to turn “foreseeability” into “see-ability” — meaning that unless they physically saw a weapon or heard a specific threat of violence, they bore no obligation to act. That, he argued, is not and has never been the standard under Maryland law.
The conditions at the event spoke for themselves. A rapidly growing, unsanctioned crowd. Underage drinking. Cannabis use. A DJ who stopped the music to try to restore order because the crowd would not listen. Two officers who told their supervisor the event needed to be shut down. A supervising corporal who did not call Baltimore County police for backup despite having the ability to do so. Under these facts, Mr. Cammarata argued, some form of harm was reasonably foreseeable — and it does not matter whether that harm came from a gun, a knife, a trampling, or a fist. The mechanism does not determine whether the duty existed.
The University’s Own Investigation Supports Ms. Torney’s Position
One of the most compelling factual points raised during the argument was the university’s response after the shooting. Towson conducted its own internal investigation and suspended the supervising corporal on duty that night. The basis for the suspension was not merely a technical protocol violation. She was disciplined specifically for failing to contact Baltimore County police for assistance when she knew the event was escalating — and for failing to intervene.
Mr. Cammarata argued that the university’s own findings validate what Ms. Torney has maintained from the outset: the circumstances that night called for action, and the people responsible for taking that action did not do so. As he told the court, if a DJ with no training recognized that the situation required intervention and tried to restore order, the trained police officers on scene should have recognized it too.
The Justices Engaged on the Broader Implications
The Supreme Court justices pressed both sides extensively throughout the argument. Several justices questioned where the line falls for unsanctioned events on university property — including fraternity parties, post-game celebrations, and other gatherings that universities are aware of but do not formally organize. One justice posed the hypothetical of a large, spontaneous campus celebration following a conference championship. Would the university owe a duty to protect the crowd? The university’s counsel acknowledged that under certain conditions, it might.
Multiple justices also challenged the defense’s position that the absence of a visible weapon or a direct threat of violence was sufficient to eliminate any duty to intervene — particularly when four police officers were physically present, watching the event unfold in real time. One justice raised the potential applicability of the state-created danger doctrine — a legal theory that had not been briefed but that the facts of the case appeared to implicate — questioning whether the university’s deliberate decision to allow the event to continue, while maintaining a visible police presence, may have exposed individuals to a danger they otherwise would not have faced.
Watch the Full Oral Argument
The full oral argument before the Supreme Court of Maryland is available below. Mr. Cammarata’s opening argument begins at the start of the recording, and his rebuttal — in which he delivers a pointed closing sequence on the duty question — begins at approximately the 55-minute mark.
“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. And therefore, this case should proceed to allow Ms. Torney to develop the facts.”
— Joseph Cammarata, oral argument before the Supreme Court of Maryland, April 9, 2026
WBAL-TV also reported on the case: Maryland Supreme Court to decide whether student shot at 2021 party can sue Towson University
Why Premises Liability Cases Like This One Matter
Premises liability law governs the duty a property owner owes to people on their land. In Washington, D.C., Maryland, and Virginia, these cases carry particular complexity because all three jurisdictions apply the doctrine of contributory negligence — under which an injured person who is found even 1% at fault may be barred from any recovery. The classification of a visitor as an invitee, a licensee, or a trespasser can determine whether the property owner owed any meaningful duty of care at all.
Torney v. Towson University tests the limits of that framework in a way that reaches well beyond one campus and one night. When a landowner is aware of a dangerous situation on its property, has law enforcement present, and makes a deliberate decision not to intervene — at what point does inaction become a failure to fulfill the duty of care? And should the law treat gun violence as inherently unforeseeable while accepting that other forms of harm, from a fist to a bottle to a trampling, fall within what could be anticipated?
As Mr. Cammarata urged the court: gun violence should not receive special exemption from the standards of foreseeability that apply to every other mechanism of harm. The use of firearms in this country is not so foreign that it falls outside the general field of danger — and the law, he argued, needs to reflect that reality.
The Supreme Court of Maryland’s opinion is expected later this year.
Chaikin, Sherman, Cammarata & Siegel, P.C. has long been one of the few firms in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area willing to take on premises liability cases — and to win them. In 2025 alone, partner Allan M. Siegel obtained over $1.9 million in premises liability recoveries for individuals injured by dangerous conditions on others’ property.
About Joseph Cammarata
Joseph Cammarata is a senior partner at Chaikin, Sherman, Cammarata & Siegel, P.C. and 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. Mr. Cammarata 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. He argued the Torney case alongside co-counsel Stephen Ollar.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is a premises liability case? A premises liability case arises when an individual is injured as a result of a dangerous or unsafe condition on someone else’s property. These cases can involve private residences, businesses, government-owned land, or — as in Torney v. Towson University — public university campuses. Property owners have a legal obligation to maintain reasonably safe conditions for individuals who are lawfully on their property, though the extent of that obligation depends on the injured person’s legal status as an invitee, licensee, or trespasser.
What is the difference between an invitee and a bare licensee? An invitee is a person whose presence on the property serves a mutual benefit — for example, a customer in a store or a student attending university. Invitees are owed the highest duty of care: the property owner must use reasonable and ordinary care to keep the premises safe for them. A bare licensee is a person who enters property with the owner’s permission but only for their own purposes. Under Maryland law, a bare licensee is owed a lower standard of care — the property owner must refrain from willful or wanton injury and from creating new dangers without warning, but is not required to actively protect the licensee from existing hazards on the property.
What does “foreseeability” mean in a premises liability case? Foreseeability refers to whether a reasonable person in the property owner’s position should have anticipated that harm could occur under the circumstances. Under Maryland law, foreseeability does not require the property owner to predict the exact mechanism of injury. Instead, courts apply a “general field of danger” standard: if the overall conditions on the property created an environment where some form of harm could reasonably be anticipated, the landowner may have a duty to act — regardless of whether the specific injury was caused by a gun, a knife, a fall, or another mechanism.
What happened in Torney v. Towson University? Catherine Torney, a Towson University student, was one of three people shot during an unsanctioned late-night party on campus in September 2021. She sued the university for negligence, arguing that campus police officers were present and aware of the escalating conditions but failed to intervene. The lower courts dismissed the case, finding that the university had no duty to protect Ms. Torney because the shooting was not foreseeable. On April 9, 2026, the Supreme Court of Maryland heard oral argument on whether those courts applied Maryland premises liability law correctly. A decision is expected later this year.
What is the state-created danger doctrine? The state-created danger doctrine is a legal theory holding that when a government entity creates or exposes an individual to a risk of harm that the individual would not otherwise face — and then acts with deliberate indifference toward that danger — liability may attach. Although this theory was not formally briefed in Torney v. Towson University, it was raised by a justice during oral argument, who questioned whether the university’s deliberate decision to allow the unsanctioned party to continue while maintaining a police presence may have exposed students to a danger they would not otherwise have encountered.
If you or a loved one has been injured due to dangerous conditions on someone else’s property, contact Chaikin, Sherman, Cammarata & Siegel, P.C. at (202) 659-8600 for a free consultation.
