|
courts, but, nevertheless, we would be re-
quiring damages to be defined by the courts.
We would have to build up a body of ju-
dicial decisions before there would be any
certainty in the Maryland law.
Now, without accepting all of the hor-
rendous forecasts of the attorney general's
decision, I think we can accept this para-
graph as being reasonably accurate. It is
our fear that the phrase "or damaged" as
proposed would be an invitation to litiga-
tion on a wholesale basis by those seeking
compensation for such items as (1) loss of
business caused by the construction of a by-
pass around a city or town for the construc-
tion of a freeway adjacent to an existing
highway. (2) the construction of median di-
viders to promote traffic safety which would
have the effect of making business proper-
ties readily accessible to one-way traffic
only. (3) loss of air, light, and view, and
(4) damage caused by increased noise and
vibration. With the exercise of a little
imagination one could conjure up a num-
ber of situations in which there would be
no actual taking, but there would be some
intangible effect on property which might
be considered damages. This opens up liti-
gation which is only limited by the imag-
ination of lawyers and their imagination in
litigation is rather extensive.
Now, the only thing sought by the pro-
posed amendment is that the General As-
sembly be permitted the opportunity to in
some manner make a reasonable definition
of compensible damages in eminent domain
cases. This could be done after a degree of
study which would tie the damages into
property rather closely and make it reason-
able. Certainly, we do not want to have to
pay damages if we build a super highway
which drains traffic from smaller roads. We
do not want to have to pay damages if we
remove a stoplight which causes business to
be lost by a roadside restaurant. Whatever
could affect the damage of property is
something that is very, very difficulty to
ascertain.
The only plea in this amendment is to
give the General Assembly the right and
the duty to make a reasonable definition of
compensible damages where there is no
take.
Thank you very much.
THE PRESIDENT: Delegate Kiefer.
DELEGATE KIEFER: Mr. President
and ladies and gentlemen of the Conven-
tion, I rise to oppose this amendment for
these reasons: first, the General Assembly,
if it tried to define and work out what is a
|
damage and what is not a damage in all of
the myriad and hundreds of thousands of
kinds of situations, would simply not get
anywhere and I would have to say to you
ladies and gentlemen that in none of the
states has the legislature ever attempted to
define what damages are. The courts can,
of course, define a measure of how damages
are to be based, for instance, on valuation,
and they can determine how valuation of
property is to be computed, but to try to
spell out what damages are has never,
never been done by any legislature any-
where.
Now, I would like to read to you very
briefly about the only state, Massachusetts,
which has done anything at all by statute.
I will just read a very short part. "In de-
termining the damages to a parcel of land
injured when no part of it has been taken
regard shall be had only to such injury as
is special and peculiar to such parcel."
Now, that is exactly what the courts have
said in their decisions and if you will look
at our memorandum, we quote the specific
rule of law that has been developed by the
courts of Illinois and been followed almost
unanimously in almost all the other states
that have this.
If you left it to the legislature to try to
define damage, or what is damage, you get
into a hopeless kind of thing. You get into
a situation where you may have more con-
fusion and more mix-up, and I think the
situation would be unparalleled. We would
not have the basis of all the judicial inter-
pretations that we now do have to rely
upon.
I think the proper place to determine
what damage is is in the courts as is done
in all the other fifty states, and in the
twenty-seven states that have this particu-
lar question of damages other than for a
taking.
I therefore respectfully urge that you re-
ject this amendment also.
THE PRESIDENT: Any other delegate
desire to speak in favor of the amendment?
Delegate Adkins.
DELEGATE ADKINS: Mr. President
and ladies and gentlemen of the Conven-
tion, I should like to make perfectly clear
that unlike the prior amendment offered by
Delegate Della, this amendment continues
the constitutional recognition of the concept
of damage which, despite the fact that it
has been recognized in some twenty-seven
other states, is a new concept to Maryland
jurisprudence in terms of eminent domain.
|
