|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
242 LAWS OF MARYLAND Ch. 13
for clarity.
The only other changes are in style.
The Commission feels that there are general
problem areas in regard to this section that
deserve legislative attention and study.
These can be summarized as follows:
(1) Is there any reason for the
apparently inconsistent use of the term
"prima facie" in subsections (a) and
(a) (2) and "presumption" in (b)? What
of the use of "injury" in subsections
(a) and (b) and "damage" in (d)?
(2) As to subsection (a), were the
phrases "operated above the lands and
waters" and "persons or property ...
beneath" actually intended to limit — as
they appear to do - the otherwise broad
meaning of "operate aircraft" and, in
effect, exclude taxiing and other ground
accidents from the applicability of this
section? If this was not the intent,
deletion of these phrases would be
appropriate. In this regard, see, also,
present Art. 1A, §10-1002 - now §5-1006
of this subtitle — which clearly was
made applicable to collisions in the air
or "on land or water".
(3) As to subsection (d) (1) , the
reference to the "owner" or "bailee" of
the injured property may be more narrow
than actually intended. The term
"bailee" properly applies only to
personal property; neither "owner" nor
"bailee" would appear to cover a lessee
or other person in control or possession
of or with an interest less then
ownership in real property. Unless this
narrow and seemingly inconsistent
construction actually was intended, the
references should be broadened to treat
real and personal property alike.
(4) Subsection (d)(2) provides for
termination of the lien on "rebuttal of
the prima facie liability". Was it
really intended that the lien terminate
on mere rebuttal of the presumption,
even before final judgment or other
resolution of the still extant issue of
liability?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(5) Should not the statute provide for a
method of filing a release of lien?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
