|
certainly at least misleading. I have asked
him to correct the record.
Delegate Hardwicke.
DELEGATE HARDWICKE: As I un-
derstand the question, Delegate Hargrove
asked whether or not in a sovereign im-
munity litigation the General Assembly
could provide that there would be no right
to trial by jury in such instance, notwith-
standing the provisions of section 1.13, and
section 1.13. These appear to give a very
broad right to a trial by jury in all civil
proceedings at law in this State, and it
would appear that the General Assembly
could not curtail this right under section
1.13, even in a sovereign immunity action.
I believe that that should be the answer to
your question.
THE CHAIRMAN : Delegate Hardwicke,
your further clarification now raises a fur-
ther doubt in the mind of the Chair, be-
cause of the discussion concerning the jury
trial case, that the right of trial by jury
of all issues of fact in civil proceedings
and law meant in effect in those cases
where the right to trial by jury existed at
common law. If that be true, and if the
right of sovereign immunity existed at com-
mon law so that there was no right to sue
the sovereign, might there not be some con-
tention at least that the right of trial by
jury would not be absolutely protected
under section 1.13?
I am not stating that that is a conclu-
sion. I am just raising the question.
Delegate Hardwicke.
DELEGATE HARDWICKE: I do not
think that the matter is completely free
from doubt, Mr. Chairman. As I under-
stand it, we were not intending to create a
right of action in this matter. We were
only intending to remove a defense which
the State could plead and consequently
since we are not creating a right of action,
it appears to me that the jury trial would
pertain.
THE CHAIRMAN: Very well.
Delegate James.
DELEGATE JAMES: Mr. Chairman,
this worries me, because my interpretation
of this provision was to the effect that this
would permit Maryland to pass a Maryland
tort claims act and to adopt such proce-
dures as might be reasonable and proper
under all the circumstances, and that the
State would not be bound by the normal re-
quirements of the Bill of Rights. To learn
that this is in effect a provisions which
|
calls for the State to go into court and in
all circumstances to be treated as a liti-
gant, like others, is a rather shocking in-
terpretation, and I really cannot agree
with it.
I certainly hate to see the record show
that that is the proper interpretation of
this section.
There are many areas. I happen to have
introduced a Maryland tort claims bill
which passed back in the early fifties but
which was vetoed by the governor. I recall
problems. One is whether you can place a
dollar limitation upon the verdict; another
would be whether you can handle claims
up to a certain amount for administrative
procedures only, and after you get beyond
that dollar amount, what type of trial do
you have? Does it apply, for instance, to
the military types of injuries?
There are all sorts of problems, and cer-
tainly it would seem to me that to adopt
the interpretation that a jury trial could
not be effected would certainly be an ex-
traordinarily radical view.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate James, I
think that you would be attributing to Dele-
gate Hardwicke's comment greater effect
than he intended at all. It seems to the
Chair that under the provision of what was
Article 8, and I understand will be Article
9, section 9.07, sovereign immunity, it
would be possible for the General Assembly
to pass a law which would not waive sov-
ereign immunity to suits against the State
but would permit some administrative pro-
cedure, such as you have described.
I think what Delegate Hardwicke is say-
ing was that if the sovereign immunity is
waived so that the State, the legislature,
permits a suit against the State in the
courts, then a question may arise as to
whether the legislature could prohibit a
jury trial in such a suit.
This might leave open a question as to
whether the General Assembly could pro-
vide for a court of claims, and, without
attempting to express any final opinion on
that, it would seem to me that such a court
would not be a part of the judicial system
and might very well be a part of the ad-
ministrative setup.
Does that further clarify or confuse your
question, Delegate Hargrove?
DELEGATE HARGROVE: Mr. Chair-
man, in relation to what Delegate Hard-
wicke said, I do believe in his answer that
the State might be able to set up a tort
claims act. You will recall that in the fed-
|
