1354                            JOINT RESOLUTIONS

This policy stems from the old English doctrine that "the King can
do no wrong." In modern parlance its application is that the State
may not be sued.

There is perhaps some question as to whether this doctrine should
ever have been transferred to the several states in the United States.
Whatever may be answer to this question, it is a fact that most states,
at least in part, use the doctrine.

The application of this doctrine raises also the possibility that an
individual may sustain serious injury at the hands of a public
employee and then have no recovery.

Another unsatisfactory aspect of the whole problem is the vague
distinction between governmental and proprietary functions. This
uncertain distinction adds point to the entire study, as suits are per-
mitted if a governmental function is involved but are not permitted
if a proprietary function is involved.

In Maryland the system of compensation by the State has usually
resulted in the introduction of a resolution in one or both houses of
the General Assembly asking the executive branch to inquire into the
facts of a claim and to provide compensation in the budget if a claim
is deemed meritorious.

A better approach would be a court of claims. This is followed by
the Federal Government under the Federal Tort Claims Act. It also
is followed by a number of states in the Union, including the State of
New York, which has waived sovereign immunity. In addition, a
number of other states, with restrictions of one kind or another, will
permit the state to be sued.

A bill modeled upon the Federal Tort Claims Act was introduced
into the General Assembly as House Bill No. 128 of 1951. It was
vetoed by the Governor and could be a basis for a broader study of the
entire subject; now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the General Assembly of Maryland, That the Legis-
lative Council is requested during 1966 to study the doctrine of
sovereign immunity and to make recommendations to the General
Assembly in 1967 concerning a possible modification of this doctrine
for the State and for its several political subdivisions.

Approved May 6, 1966.

No. 12
(Senate Joint Resolution 10)

Senate Joint Resolution requesting the Legislative Council to study
the impact of reapportionment upon the rules, procedures, and
organization of the General Assembly of Maryland.

The General Assembly requests the Legislative Council during 1966
to study various aspects of the impact of reapportionment upon the
rules, procedures, and organization of the General Assembly.

While the issue is not yet firmly resolved, a preliminary court test
of the reapportionment bill enacted at the Special Session of October