Ellina's Negligence Case Study

In the third count of her complaint, Ellina contends that Gil negligently made statements about Ellina that caused Ellina damage. “A complaint alleging negligence must contain the following elements: (1) that the defendant was under a duty to protect the plaintiff from injury, (2) that the defendant breached that duty, (3) that the plaintiff suffered actual injury or loss, and (4) that the loss or injury proximately resulted from the defendant’s breach of the duty.” Lloyd v. GMC, 397 Md. 108, 132 (2007) (internal quotations omitted). Critically, a plaintiff need not make an assertion regarding the defendant’s subjective intent to state a claim for negligence. Indeed, Ellina’s allegation of negligence is silent as to whether Gil acted to cause Ellina injury, or whether he subjectively knew that his averments were false. Of course, it could be—and perhaps likely is—the case that Gil knew his statement were false and acted with the intent to cause Ellina harm. Nevertheless, Ellina’s allegation of negligence as pleaded leaves open the potential that Gil neither possessed the intent nor the knowledge

“The elements of tortious interference with contract are: 1) existence of a contract between plaintiff and a third party; 2) defendant’s knowledge of that contract; 3) defendant’s intentional interference with that contract; 4) breach of that contract by the third party; 5) resulting damages to the plaintiff.” Fraidin v. Weitzman, 93 Md. App. 168, 189 (1991) (citing Fowler v. Printers II, 89 Md. App. 448, 466 (1991). Moreover, “Maryland does not recognize a cause of action for negligent interference with prospective economic advantage.” Semtek Int’l, Inc. v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 2003 MDBT *4, *20 (J. Matricciani, Jr., publishing an opinion as persuasive authority while hearing a matter on the trial court’s business and technology