|
The Court of Appeals, in discussing this
doctrine, has said many times it is illogical,
but that is the state of law in Maryland.
That is the way it has been and that is
the way we will have to interpret it until
the General Assembly does something about
it.
To date, the General Assembly has not
done anything. There is a need for this. The
doctrine which is in force and effect in the
State of Maryland today is outmoded.
It stems from the doctrine that the king
can do no wrong. When the king appointed
his judges, they were in the service of the
king and the king could not be sued in his
own courts. The doctrine is hundreds of
years old and should be done away with.
Now, it has been stated that the General
Assembly has acted in this area. I submit
to you that it has acted in a few cases only.
There are many, many cases in which it
has not acted.
I am against the amendment and I ask
you to support the Committee's recommen-
dation.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does any other dele-
gate desire to speak in favor of the amend-
ment? The Chair recognizes Delegate
Dukes.
DELEGATE DUKES: I want to speak
against the amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair recog-
nizes Delegate Rybczynski to speak against
the amendment.
DELEGATE RYBCZYNSKI: I wish to
carry forward the argument of Delegate
Macdonald with still another example
which can bring this matter home to you
fully. If a woman is working at a hospital
which carries insurance and she injures
herself while changing beds or moving a
patient, she will be covered by workmen's
compensation. If she has the misfortune of
working at the Baltimore City Hospital
doing the very same job, receiving the very
same injury, she is not covered.
As Delegate Macdonald said, this is ar-
chaic and it is ridiculous. In this day of
insurance, certainly the state, counties and
municipalities are protecting themselves
against natural hazards. Why should they
not protect themselves against man-made
hazards?
If the delegates are really concerned
about detail in the Constitution, let us go
back to the legislative article which tells
the General Assembly how to keep their
|
ledger. This constitution has portions in it
which border on the legislative. However,
as Delegate Macdonald pointed out so very
well, the legislature has failed to act in this
field adequately. It has had a hundred
years in which to direct these matters. It
has failed to do so.
This is a true progressive type piece of
constitutional law. It deserves to be in here
and it should stay.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does any other dele-
gate desire to speak in favor of the
amendment?
Delegate Moser?
DELEGATE MOSER: I rise to speak in
favor of Delegate Scanlan's amendment. I
think that the colloquy on the floor has
illustrated that this is purely a legislative
matter and that it is something which
should be carefully considered by the legis-
lature. They considered a number of bills
on the subject the last time.
We are moving in the direction of re-
moving sovereign immunity through legis-
lation and I suggest to you that section 7
as it is worded before the Kiefer amend-
ment might have a disastrous effect on
some of the smaller subdivisions.
I think that it is something that is a
policy matter that we as a Convention
cannot possibly give adequate consideration
to, and therefore I support the deletion of
the section.
THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair recog-
nizes Delegate Dukes.
Before recognizing Delegate Dukes, the
Chair recognizes Delegate Case to speak
to a matter of personal privilege.
DELEGATE CASE: Mr. Chairman, it
gives me great pleasure to announce a
group of distinguished visitors in the gal-
lery from your district and mine in Balti-
more County.
This is 128 students from Cockeysville
Junior High School, accompanied by their
teachers, Mrs. Ensor, Mr. De Vita, and
Mr. Uhlen.
I hope we will give them a very, very
cordial welcome.
(Applause.)
THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair recog-
nizes Delegate Darby to speak to a matter
of personal privilege.
DELEGATE DARBY: Thank you, Mr.
Chairman and fellow delegates. I would
|
