## Facts

- Dexter Hagley left a roll of film at a Rite Aid store in Baltimore for one-hour processing; store manager Robert Rosiak developed the film and printed sixteen photographs.
- Four photographs depicted Hagley and his eight-year-old son, Kerwyn, in a bathtub; Hagley was clothed in shorts, and the child was nude.
- Rosiak found the images troubling and ambiguous, believing one photo could be interpreted as Hagley “cupping” the child’s genitals, and he was uncertain how to interpret them.
- Rosiak consulted his supervisor, who advised contacting police, and he showed the photographs to mall security personnel to obtain their views regarding possible child sexual abuse.
- Rosiak refused to release the photographs to Hagley and reported the matter to law enforcement; police investigated, and child protective services temporarily placed Kerwyn in foster care.
- Authorities ultimately filed no criminal charges.
- Hagley, the child’s mother, and Kerwyn sued Rite Aid and Rosiak for claims including defamation, invasion of privacy, negligence, and related torts based on the handling of the photographs and communications to third parties.
- Defendants asserted statutory immunity for good-faith child-abuse reporting under Md. Code, Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 5-620 and Md. Code, Fam. Law § 5-708.

## Issues

1. Whether Maryland’s child-abuse reporting immunity statutes protect not only the report itself but also other acts connected in time and subject matter to the report (including showing photographs to others and retaining them).
2. What showing a plaintiff must make at summary judgment to create a triable issue that the reporter lacked “good faith” and therefore is not immune.
3. Whether defamation and invasion-of-privacy claims arising from communications made as part of a good-faith reporting process are barred by statutory immunity.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals of Maryland held that statutory immunity for good-faith child-abuse reporting covers all acts by a reporter connected both in time and subject matter to the report.
- The court held that, to defeat summary judgment on immunity, plaintiffs must produce particularized facts permitting a finding of actual malice or another improper motive; allegations of mistake, ambiguity, or negligence are insufficient.
- The court held that defamation and invasion-of-privacy claims are barred when they arise from communications incident to, and in furtherance of, a good-faith report.
- The court reversed the intermediate appellate court to the extent it allowed defamation and privacy claims to proceed and reinstated summary judgment for Rite Aid and Rosiak on all counts.

## Legal Principles

- Under Md. Code, Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 5-620 and Md. Code, Fam. Law § 5-708, a person acting in good faith in making or participating in a child-abuse report is immune from civil and criminal liability.
- The immunity extends beyond the formal report to reasonable steps and communications connected both in time and subject matter to evaluating and reporting suspected abuse, including consultation with others and communications to investigators.
- At the summary-judgment stage, the plaintiff bears the burden to point to specific facts supporting an inference of bad faith, such as actual malice, ill will, or an improper motive unrelated to child protection.
- Tort claims labeled as defamation or invasion of privacy are not categorically excluded from the immunity when the challenged statements or disclosures were made in furtherance of a good-faith report.

## Conclusion

Maryland’s highest court applied a broad construction of child-abuse reporting immunity, holding that good-faith reporters are protected for related actions and communications tied to the reporting process, and that plaintiffs must present specific evidence of malice or improper motive to overcome immunity and avoid summary judgment.


Rite Aid Corp. v. Hagley, 374 Md. 665, 824 A.2d 107 (2003)