|
DELEGATE WILLONER: Section 4 is
going to be covered by someone else. I
covered sections 8, 7, 10, and 12.
DELEGATE J. CLARK (presiding):
Are there any questions on the sections
covered by Delegate Willoner?
The Chair recognizes Delegate Bam-
berger.
DELEGATE BAMBERGER: Delegate
Willoner, my question is with respect to
section 7. Does this mean that the General
Assembly may waive the defense of im-
munity for a county or municipality or any
other political subdivision?
DELEGATE WILLONER: I think it
does apply to all. The state is used in the
broad sense to apply to all municipalities.
It is not used in a restrictive sense in the
State of Maryland.
DELEGATE BAMBERGER: But it spe-
cifically says that neither the State nor any
political subdivision, which, I take it, in-
cludes all of the counties and municipali-
ties, regional governments, and the other
things which we were discussing in the
local government article.
DELEGATE WILLONER: Yes.
DELEGATE BAMBERGER: My ques-
tion particularly concerns the last phrase,
the power to make these local units of
government subject to suit lies not in their
governing body, but in the General As-
sembly. Is that correct?
DELEGATE WILLONER: I would not
know the answer to that. The intent is to
eliminate this plea of governmental im-
munity except that the legislature can, if
it sees fit, take this right away.
DELEGATE J. CLARK (presiding):
Delegate Bamberger.
DELEGATE BAMBERGER: Well, this
says that there is no longer a constitutional
right of sovereign immunity or at least it
says that by the constitution, the doctrine
of sovereign immunity is revoked, except
that the General Assembly may limit that
revocation.
DELEGATE WILLONER: That is cor-
rect.
DELEGATE J. CLARK (presiding):
Delegate Henderson.
DELEGATE HENDERSON: I do not
want to get into debate on this subject. I
was thinking of this same section 7. Is it
not true, though, -that the legislature has
|
already repealed to some extent any doc-
trine of sovereign immunity by providing
that the defense should not be depleted to
the extent it is covered at present.
DELEGATE WILLONER: That is right.
DELEGATE HENDERSON: The legis-
lature has recognized this problem and
dealt with it in its own rather peculiar
fashion. Does this constitutional provision
prevent the continuance of that relief?
DELEGATE WILLONER: Prevent?
DELEGATE HENDERSON: Yes.
DELEGATE WILLONER: This consti-
tutional provision is broader. The present
rule is if you have insurance, you cannot
plead governmental immunity. This ques-
tion would be irrelevant now. You cannot
plead governmental immunity whether you
have insurance or not. Is that what you
are asking?
DELEGATE J. CLARK (presiding):
Delegate Henderson.
DELEGATE HENDERSON: My ques-
tion was whether this constitutional pro-
vision would prevent the legislature from
dealing with this problem exactly as it has
at the present time.
DELEGATE WILLONER: No. It would
not prevent it from dealing with the prob-
lem as it has because it could put such
limitations on.
DELEGATE HENDERSON: Since the
legislature has recognized and dealt with
this problem, why do you want this pro-
vision in the constitution? You are simply
saying the legislature may deal with it as
it sees fit and the legislature has seen fit.
DELEGATE WILLONER: We are try-
ing to switch the burden essentially, Judge
Henderson, so that the plea of govern-
mental immunity no longer exists except
that in the future the legislature may limit
that plea, and the extent is clear.
Frankly, I suppose, at least some mem-
bers of the Committee feel that it should
not exist at all anymore, but to obviate
those objections of the people who feel that
this would possibly open the floodgates, we
should give the legislature a right to regu-
late this elimination of governmental im-
munity.
DELEGATE J. CLARK (presiding):
The Chair recognizes Delegate Storm.
DELEGATE STORM: Mr. Willoner, was
it your assignment to cover most of the
controversial items in this R&P-2?
|
