2001 Legislative Wrap-Up (Continued from page 11)


in Annapolis about the effort put forward by the Maryland Trial Lawyers Associa- tion, you would hear that our effort was thorough, professional, well organized, and effective.


As the legislative chair, it


was a privilege to help direct and coordi- nate an effort that was so strongly supported by MTLA’s members and Board.


The Best of Times:


Abrogation of Parent Child Immunity (House Bill 183)


After years of effort and advocacy on our part, the Maryland General Assem- bly passed, and Governor Glendening signed, House Bill 183, which abrogates the doctrine of parent child immunity in motor vehicle cases up to Maryland’s mandatory coverage limits of $20,000/ $40,000. Of critical importance is the enacting of language for this bill, which states as follows: The provisions of this act shall apply to any case for wrongful death, personal injury, or property damage arising out of the operation of a motor vehicle filed on or after the effective date of this act. … This act shall take effect October 1, 2001. That’s right. The abrogation of par- ent child immunity applies to any suit filed on or after October 1, 2001 regard- less of when the underlying occurrence took place. So go through your files, jog your memories, and contact the mothers and fathers who have come to you in the


past in an effort to help their children. The story of the parent child immu-


nity bill’s passage is a saga unto itself. Joseph Vallario, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, took a keen inter- est in this bill, co-sponsoring it with two members of his committee, Delegates Kenneth Montague and Kevin Kelly. Chairman Vallario assigned the bill for a hearing before the session started as well as another hearing during the session. In addition to Chairman Vallario, credit for the passage of the parent child immunity bill rests with the Johnson family, who attended both hearings and whose story is reviewed in an accompanying piece in this issue by Evelyn Darden. The reality of the Johnsons’ story made all the differ- ence in this bill gaining momentum. Their story drove home the point that when a parent injures their minor child because of negligence behind the wheel, the parent wants to present a claim on behalf of the child, not out of greed, but out of a concern for the child’s well being and safety.


While the parent child immunity bill came out of the House Judiciary Com- mittee with strong support, it ran into serious trouble on the House floor because Delegate John Arnick, who ironically is an attorney himself, spoke negatively about attorneys. When voted, the bill failed to muster a constitutional major- ity. At this critical point, Delegate Ann Marie Doory moved for reconsideration, and the bill was held for a vote the fol- lowing day. Bruce Plaxen and I attended the voting session the following day in the House and the debate was passionate.


IN SUBURBANMARYLAND, ONLY ONE OFFICE PARK


HAS A FEDERAL COURTHOUSE RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET.


Not to mention, award-winning architecture, the Greenbelt Marriott Hotel and Conference Center on-site, a Metro and MARC stop nearby and the Capital Beltway at the front door. For leasing information contact: Dennis


Burke or Lauren Weiss. On-site leasing office is located at Suite 200, 6305 Ivy Lane, Greenbelt, MD 20770.


Exclusive leasing and management by CRC Commercial, a division of Community Realty Co., Inc. Phone: 301-441-3434 12 Trial Reporter


Delegate Arnick continued to rail against the bill, but Delegate Lisa Gladden from the House Judiciary Committee stood up and spoke persuasively about the Johnson family’s circumstances, and Delegate Doory, among others, also stood up to voice her support of the bill. With their help, it became clear that the bill was about protecting families, and the bill then passed the House. However, the story was only half over, and the drama associated with the parent child immunity bill continued right up until the last day of the session. Suffice it to say, the bill looked as though it was about to be caught up in disagreements over other matters between the Senate Judicial Pro- ceedings Committee and the House Judiciary Committee. On the last day of the session, our three lobbyists, Bruce Plaxen, and I literally were present for the entire day until 11 p.m. at the State House, talking to every possible contact imagin- able to press for the bill’s release from the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee and for a vote on the Senate floor. Our hopes were raised at 4:30 p.m. when the commit- tee released the bill, and our efforts were rewarded at 10:45 p.m. when the bill was voted and passed by the Senate. It is difficult to convey how much ef-


fort went into the parent child immunity bill. Now that it is passed, as of October 1, a tool is available to assist immediately children who have been harmed in past motor vehicle collisions. Because of the passage of the parent child immunity bill, young Kelby Johnson’s father now knows that his son definitely will have access to the plastic surgical services needed to ad- dress his keloid scarring. Please use this tool wisely to help other families like the Johnsons.


The Worst of Times: Comparative Negligence


In Harrison v. Montgomery County


Board of Education, 295 Md. 442, 456 A.2d 894 (1983) the Court of Appeals deferred any decision to adopt compara- tive negligence to the Legislature, using this language: In a final analysis, whether to abandon the doctrine of contribu- tory negligence in favor of comparative negligence involves fundamental and basic public policy considerations properly to be addressed by the Legislature. 295 Md. at 463, 456 A.2d 894


It is very doubtful that the Court ever contemplated the type of political maneu- vering that killed this year’s comparative negligence bill. Senate Bill 483 simply and cleanly


Summer 2001


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56