|
allows or recognizes the necessity of modi-
fying the basic concept that the sovereign
can do no wrong and cannot be sued.
There are three states, I believe, that
strictly forbid any such suits. The modern
tendency is to do otherwise. There are now
two states which by constitutional state-
ments recognize this principle. Most of
them leave it to the legislature to spell out
the areas in which this right is to be
granted. A few of them spell it out in detail.
I therefore urge you to vote against this
amendment. While nobody wants a terse
constitution more than I do, there are cer-
tain corners we do not want to skin and
there are certain areas where we want to
recognize basic principles. I think this is
one of them.
I would urge you to defeat this amend-
ment to eliminate all reference to this con-
cept of sovereign immunity.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does any other dele-
gate desire to speak in favor of the amend-
ment ?
Delegate Bamberger.
DELEGATE BAMBERGER: Will Dele-
gate Kiefer yield to a question?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Kiefer, do
you yield to a question ?
DELEGATE KIEFER: Yes, sir.
T,HE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Bamberger.
DELEGATE BAMBERGER: Do you in-
tend to offer your Amendment D as a sub-
stitute for section 7?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Kiefer.
DELEGATE KIEFER: Yes.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Bamberger.
DELEGATE BAMBERGER: Then, if the
constitution says nothing about the immu-
nity of governmental units, does the legis-
lature not have the power to prescribe the
limits of that immunity?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Kiefer.
DELEGATE KIEFER: Yes, that is true.
But it is similar to other concepts which we
are putting into this constitution, where we
frankly admit that the legislature could act
on its own. We are stating a concept.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Bamberger.
DELEGATE BAMBERGER: Why, do
you mean either section 7 as it is or your
Amendment D?
|
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Kiefer.
DELEGATE KIEFER: As I explained,
we believed on this Committee, and I re-
iterate, in the desirability and if you please,
the almost necessity of establishing this
concept.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does any other dele-
gate desire to speak in favor of the amend-
ment ?
Delegate Clagett.
DELEGATE CLAGETT: Mr. Chairman,
I rise in support of the amendment to
strike because we have seen over the years
a gradual evolution of the effect of this
doctrine with respect to the course of our
daily lives.
As Delegate Henderson mentioned yes-
terday, to the extent that there is insurance
coverage, there is no immunity. To the ex-
tent that there is direct exposure where
the public interest is involved, the doctrine
is recognized.
As the public interest changed, it seems
that we are undergoing many changes with
respect to the public interest. There is no
question but that the General Assembly
and the courts will be able to adequately
deal with the situation.
Where something is adequately effectively
recognized and taken care of, there is ab-
solutely no need for the additional clutter-
ing of this document.
Therefore, I strongly urge that we delete
it.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does any other dele-
gate desire to speak in opposition to the
amendment ?
Delegate Macdonald.
DELEGATE MACDONALD: Mr. Chair-
man and fellow delegates. The proposer of
this amendment says that the section 4 in
the majority report is not necessary. I
submit to you that it is most necessary,
especially in connection with suits against
counties and municipalities. The present
state of the law is this in Maryland: If a
county fails to maintain a road properly,
and acknowledges that it failed to fix a
pothole that you drive your car into al-
though you were careful, you could sue the
county.
That is the only case in which you could
sue the county. If a county police vehicle
smashes into your car because the police
officer is grossly negligent and the county
has not insured its vehicles for liability, you
can not recover against the county.
|
