clear space clear space clear space white space
A
 r c h i v e s   o f   M a r y l a n d   O n l i n e

PLEASE NOTE: The searchable text below was computer generated and may contain typographical errors. Numerical typos are particularly troubling. Click “View pdf” to see the original document.

  Maryland State Archives | Index | Help | Search
search for:
clear space
white space
Proceedings and Debates of the 1967 Constitutional Convention
Volume 104, Volume 1, Debates 3193   View pdf image (33K)
 Jump to  
  << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>
clear space clear space clear space white space

[Jan. 3] DEBATES 3193

DELEGATE JAMES (presiding) : Dele-
gate Kiefer.

DELEGATE KIEFER: Mr. Chairman,
Delegate White, as this was first written,
it was without limitation except descrip-
tion of the word "damage". It was amended
to make the word "damage" defined by the
legislature. The legislature has to have op-
portunity to meet and to come up with
some kind of a definition. So we had to put
a cut-off date, if the constitution meets or
is effective as of July 1, 1968, the legisla-
ture will not meet until January, 1969. So
there has to be some kind of a period for
the legislature to act. Normally as you
know, the statutes enacted by a session take
effect the first of January, 1969. I do not
see how we could possibly make it any
earlier than July 1, 1969, by what we have
done here.

DELEGATE JAMES (presiding) : Dele-
gate Willoner.

DELEGATE WILLONER: I was won-
dering in your definition of when the dam-
ages occurred, in a case of continuing dam-
ages, would not damage, essentially several
causes of action, arise as a result of, say,
one taking, and the cause of action arise
after the first of July, 1969? Of course, it
would be actionable, would it not?

DELEGATE HARDWICKE : I think you
have in mind that kind of tort each day of
which is supposed to be a new cause of
action. Is that the sort of thing you are
thinking of?

DELEGATE WILLONER: Yes.

DELEGATE HARDWICKE: If that is
the kind of tort you are talking about,
then since each day is a renewal of it de
novo so to speak, I would expect the court
to hold that the continuation of it begin-
ning on July 1, 1969, would be compensable
under this section.

DELEGATE WILLONER: I have an-
other question that I may be wrong about.
You referred to the General Assembly de-
fining damages in this situation. I thought
they could except areas of damage. That
was the intent of the amendment, I thought,
and in that case, if they did not act, the
damage would be left up to development by
the court, is that correct?

DELEGATE HARDWICKE: I do not
propose to make any substitute definitions.
As I read the amendment which was pro-
posed, the limitation restriction could cut
damages down to practically nothing.

DELEGATE WILLONER: I will not dis-
agree with that, but I mean it is a matter
of restriction opposed to definition, is it
not?

DELEGATE JAMES (presiding) : Mr.
Kiefer.

DELEGATE KIEFER: Mr. Chairman,
what Delegate Willoner says is correct but
the legislature still has to have oppor-
tunity to act if it wants to. That's why we
set that date. I do not know why we have
to get excited about it. There is no earlier
date that can be made.

DELEGATE JAMES (presiding) : Dele-
gate Willoner.

DELEGATE WILLONER: I am not cri-
ticizing the fact of the date. The discussion
turned into matter of definition. We leave
it up to them to define the matter of dam-
age. This was a matter of allowing the
General Assembly to protect this area and
not as a matter of defining it so if they
did define it, we would not have any
damages.

DELEGATE JAMES (presiding) : Dele-
gate Hardwicke.

DELEGATE HARDWICKE : In terms of
the amendment, I think the General As-
sembly shall make limitations and restric-
tions and they have to have one session in
which to make limitations and restrictions.

DELEGATE JAMES (presiding) : Dele-
gate Willoner.

DELEGATE WILLONER: I would
agree with that. My only point was it was
a matter of defining the word. If they
chose not to act in that year, we would
have a definition made by the court.

DELEGATE HARDWICKE: That is
correct.

DELEGATE JAMES (presiding) : Dele-
gate Henderson.

DELEGATE HENDERSON: I would
suggest there is another point of the July
1 date which is a beginning of the new
budget year and I assume when they
passed this law, they will make some pro-
vision for actual payment in the budget.
They have to do that. I do not see how
you can set up a claim sooner than July 1
for that additional reason. It seems to me
it is futile for us to argue as to what the
extent of recovery might be, whether you
can antedate the statute. All we are trying
to do here is fix the date when the new
provision goes into effect. I suggest July 1
is the earliest that can be done.



 

clear space
clear space
white space

Please view image to verify text. To report an error, please contact us.
Proceedings and Debates of the 1967 Constitutional Convention
Volume 104, Volume 1, Debates 3193   View pdf image (33K)
 Jump to  
  << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>


This web site is presented for reference purposes under the doctrine of fair use. When this material is used, in whole or in part, proper citation and credit must be attributed to the Maryland State Archives. PLEASE NOTE: The site may contain material from other sources which may be under copyright. Rights assessment, and full originating source citation, is the responsibility of the user.


Tell Us What You Think About the Maryland State Archives Website!



An Archives of Maryland electronic publication.
For information contact mdlegal@mdarchives.state.md.us.

©Copyright  Cannot perform flastmod(): Win32 Error Code = 2

Maryland State Archives