5018

VETOES

Honorable Harry Hughes
Governor of Maryland
State House
Annapolis, Maryland 21404

Re: House Bill 155 and
Senate Bill 240

Dear Governor Hughes:

We have reviewed House Bill 155 and Senate Bill 240,
identical bills purporting to exempt an operator of certain
emergency vehicles from tort liability and to impose
liability on the owner or lessee of the vehicle. Although
these bills are constitutional, they contain severe
interpretative problems that will unnecessarily perplex both
courts and litigants.

Both bills add § 19-103 to the Transportation Article
and provide in § 19-103(b)(l) that:

"An authorized operator of an emergency
vehicle who is authorized to operate the
emergency vehicle by its owner or lessee, is
not liable in his individual capacity, when
exercising reasonable care, for any damages
resulting from a tortious act or omission
within the scope of performing emergency
service."

The bills also provide in § 19-103(c)(l) that:

"An owner or lessee of an emergency
vehicle, including a political subdivision,
is liable to the extent provided in
subsection (d) of this section for any
damages caused by a tortious act or omission
of an authorized operator of an emergency
vehicle, when exercising reasonable care,
within the scope of performing emergency
service."

We believe the original intent of the legislation was
to exempt operators of certain emergency vehicles from
liability for negligent (but not grossly negligent) acts and
to impose such liability on the owners or lessees of the
vehicles, thus making the latter strictly liable for the
negligence (but not the gross negligence) of the operators,
Unfortunately, this purpose is obscured by the addition of
the words "when exercising reasonable care." When a person is
exercising reasonable care, he cannot be liable for
negligence; only if there is a lack of reasonable care will
an action for negligence lie. Baltimore Transit Co. v.
Prinz, 215 Md. 398, 403 (1958).