|
were talking about here as damage is often
held to be a tort, under the tort cause of
action, and therefore is recovered under
those circumstances. That is, you have to
prove a tort against yourself and a loss.
DELEGATE J. CLARK (presiding):
Delegate Kiefer.
DELEGATE KIEFER: You might have
to here, Delegate Hargrove, but I simply
do not know, except to say to you that this
gives the citizens a right for damage for
the taking or damaging of their property
and the mechanics of it we have not worked
out. That is not a problem that need con-
cern us.
At this point we are concerned only with
establishing that a person may recover, or
his property cannot be damaged without
compensation to him.
DELEGATE J. CLARK (presiding) :
Delegate Hargrove.
DELEGATE HARGROVE: Did your
Committee consider the question of where
property is being taken for public use and
there is damage, and other property is
damaged by virtue of an action of someone
who is working on the property and there-
fore might preclude an accidental tort
against a third party in the State? Would
you consider that as a possibility?
DELEGATE J. CLARK (presiding) :
Delegate Kiefer.
DELEGATE KIEFER: A common law
cause of action is not involved in this at
all. This does not interfere with such a
cause of action nor does it aid such a cause
of action.
This is only an action or a right to
damages under a concept that has been in
existence for some time. Implementation
of it would have to be left to the courts
and to the legislature. J
DELEGATE J. CLARK (presiding):
Are there any further questions?
Delegate Grant.
DELEGATE GRANT: Pursuing just a
little further on Delegate Hargrove's ques-
tion, this is not an intention to waive sov-
ereign immunity as far as tort claims go?
DELEGATE KIEFER: No, this is simply
recognizing that in this day and age an
individual property owner has a right for
damages in a situation in which he does
not have the right under the present law.
It is intended to fill a need because the
increased building of public highways and
public improvements can cause damage
|
without a physical taking of the property
itself.
DELEGATE J. CLARK (presiding) :
Delegate Grant.
DELEGATE GRANT: I understand what
your situation is there. But allowing for
the possibility that it could be expanded,
would you suggest that the legislature
could define this area, what you would want
to include in that would be within their
power to define what is taken for a public
purpose?
DELEGATE KIEFER: Yes, and this is
normally what is done in other states that
have it.
DELEGATE J. CLARK (presiding) :
Are there any further questions?
Delegate Sybert.
DELEGATE SYBERT: Mr. Chairman,
I should like to address a question to the
Chairman of the Committee.
Referring to section 9, subsection B,
which provides that property shall not be
taken or damaged for public use or pur-
poses without just compensation, that word-
ing except for the addition of the words
"or damaged" is more or less substantially
the wording of the provision in the present
Constitution against the taking of private
property for public use without just com-
pensation.
Now, I notice in the Committee Memo-
randum, beginning at page 28 running
through page 29, it is stated that the legis-
lature could provide for quick takes, that
is for the payment of money into court
under a special provision which was added
to the Maryland Constitution about 35
years ago, so that the State Roads Com-
mission could pay money into court and
take the property after paying an amount
into court that was estimated by the State
Roads Commission to be the fair value of
the property.
At that time, it was considered necessary
and there could not be a quick take with-
out that provision being in the Constitu-
tion and, indeed, as you point out on page
29 of the Committee Memorandum, similar
provisions have been added to the Consti-
tution with respect to quick takes for cer-
tain public purposes in Baltimore City, Bal-
timore County, Montgomery County and
Cecil County, and also property located in
Prince George's County.
Now, with a similar provision in the
present Constitution, is it absolutely clear
|
