HARRY HUGHES, Governor

5019

Section 19-103(b)(1) seems to say that an operator is
not liable in tort if he exercises reasonable care. But,
under such circumstances, he would not be liable in tort in
any event, be it for negligence or gross negligence. On the
other hand, § 19-103(c)(1) would appear to impose liability
on the owner or lessee of the vehicle even if the operator
were not negligent. This is more than strict liability and
simply could not have been intended. Moreover, under §
19-103(c)(1) it is unclear whether the owner or lessee is to
be liable jointly or solely for actions that involve gross
negligence.

Because the use in the same paragraph of the mutually
exclusive words "tortious act or omission" and "exercising
reasonable care" creates an obvious ambiguity in the bills,
that might lead a court to somehow construe the bills in a
reasonable fashion. Kindley v. Governor of Maryland, 289
Md. 620 (1981).

However, we can give no assurance how a court would
construe the bills and whether it would construe them so as
to exempt an operator from liability for negligence and
impose only that liability on the owner or lessee of the
vehicle.

Very truly yours,
Stephen H. Sachs
Attorney General

Senate Bill No. 254

AN ACT concerning

Unemployment Insurance - Urban Enterprise Zones

FOR the purpose of eliminating special unemployment
insurance contribution rates for employers in an Urban
Enterprise Zone.

BY repealing and reenacting, without amendments,

Article 95A - Unemployment Insurance Law

Section 8(a) and (c)

Annotated Code of Maryland

(1979 Replacement Volume and 1981 Supplement)

BY repealing and reenacting, with amendments,