|
lute right of suit in every respect without
any curtailment by the legislature. We feel
that the legislature should have at least
one session within which to make whatever
adjustments it wants. This is only fair.
There has never been any question about
this as far as the Committee on Personal
Rights was concerned and I think there was
some recommendation, maybe in an ancil-
lary report, where the suggestion was made
that it be put off even longer.
Maybe Delegate Willoner will recall that,
but I believe the Committee was quite firm
in its feelings that the legislature should
have some chance to take some kind of
definitive action on this.
I would therefore urge that you reject
this amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN : Does any other dele-
gate desire to speak in favor?
Delegate Churchill Murray?
DELEGATE E. C. MURRAY: Mr.
Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, I felt it
necessary to oppose Delegate Johnson's first
amendment, not because it was not fair, not
because it should not have been supported,
but for the practical reason that I do think
that you have to give the legislature some
time in which to make inquiry, to establish
guidelines, and to make this into a working
thing.
As you all know from the number of
times that I have spoken on this subject,
I feel there is a moral obligation here, and
the sooner we can start discharging it the
better. However, this amendment does deal
largely with personal injuries. It does deal
with injury and damage done and more
easily determinable. I cannot think of any
good right, and I do not recall — perhaps
I should, but I do not — any discussion
within our Committee which led to or
would lead to a deferment of the acceptance
of this responsibility. If it is a right, and
I believe that it is a right, then I believe
we should accept it immediately.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does any other dele-
gate desire to speak in favor?
(There was no response.)
Does any other delegate desire to speak
in opposition? Delegate Groh?
DELEGATE GROH: Ladies and gentle-
men, I would just like to point out that we
had some opposition on the part of munici-
palities and other units that would be af-
fected by this. We felt it necessary to give
a short period of time for them to obtain
|
the necessary insurance, and also for the
legislature to define this without opening it
up completely. I feel that to avoid serious
opposition on the part of units of govern-
ment to this, we should give this concession,
as set forth in the transitional provisions.
Thank you.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does any other dele-
gate desire to speak in favor? Delegate
Willoner?
DELEGATE WILLONER: I just wish
to clear the record up. I do not really want
to speak in favor of it. May I make
comment?
THE CHAIRMAN: You may.
DELEGATE WILLONER: I believe it
was the intent of the Committee that the
right of sovereign immunity should be
eliminated, and if the legislature had prob-
lems with it, they could protect those areas.
The sentiment was not to allow the legis-
lature to define sovereign immunity but
just to protect certain areas if they develop
problems in those areas.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does any other dele-
gate desire to speak in favor of the amend-
ment? Delegate Hargrove?
DELEGATE HARGROVE: I have a
question I would like to ask. I might ask
the Chair, because it does not relate di-
rectly to the amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN: Very well. State the
question.
DELEGATE HARGROVE: Would the
sovereign immunity provisions encompass
the possibility that the General Assembly
might deprive the person of a jury trial in
this area, in view of section 1.13?
As we all know, in the federal tort
claims act there is a similar thing. There is
prohibition against jury trial by a plaintiff.
THE CHAIRMAN: I am not sure I fol-
low your question, Delegate Hargrove.
DELEGATE HARGROVE: I will put it
this way, Mr. Chairman. Would section 1.13
prevent the General Assembly from setting
up as a part of the sovereign immunity
provision, or some legislation setting out
the areas in which suits can be had, a pro-
hibition of the right to a jury trial?
THE CHAIRMAN: I follow you. I would
not think so myself. The section on sover-
eign immunity on second reading is not
before you simply because the original sec-
tion was in the declaration of rights when
|
