|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
18 JOURNAL OF PROCEEDINGS Aug. 6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
were not negligent. This is more than strict liability and
simply could not have been intended. Moreover, under §
19-103(c)(l) 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. 240
AN ACT concerning
Emergency Vehicle Operation - Liability
FOR the purpose of providing that certain operators of
certain emergency vehicles are not liable for certain
acts or omissions under certain circumstances;
providing that owners or lessees of emergency vehicles
are liable for certain acts or omissions of authorized
operators of emergency vehicles under certain
circumstances; providing for limitations on liability;
defining certain terms; providing for the application
of this Act; and generally relating to the liability of
certain emergency vehicle operations in this State.
BY adding to
Article - Transportation
Section 19-103
Annotated Code of Maryland
(1977 Volume and 1981 Supplement)
The President put the question: Shall the Bill pass,
notwithstanding the objections of the Executive
The roll call vote resulted as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Affirmative: 2
|
|
|
|
|
|
Negative: 43
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
