would have adopted a 51% rule, without any modification of joint and several li- ability. Senator Sfikas was approached the second day of the session and agreed at that time to co-sponsor the bill. The bill was introduced in the Senate and was co- sponsored by President Mike Miller and Senators Leo Green, Clarence Mitchell, IV, Perry Sfikas, and Nathaniel Exum. Senators Green, Mitchell and Sfikas are members of the Senate Judicial Proceed- ings Committee. Maria Walker, a constituent of Sena- tor Sfikas, and I, personally met with the Senator in his office on February 7, 2001. One of our lobbyists, Mindy Binderman also was there. Maria explained to Sena- tor Sfikas the story of her elderly mother, who was hit by a young driver using a cell phone while she was crossing Eastern Boulevard in the heart of Senator Sfikas’ district. While Maria’s mother did not have the right of way, she was crossing at a crosswalk, had almost made it across the street, and the driver of a postal vehicle in the lane next to the young driver had no difficulty seeing her in the roadway and stopping in plenty of time. Maria’s mother suffered severe orthopedic inju- ries and Maria and her husband have to support and tend to her on a daily basis. Senator Sfikas expressed his sympathy and stated repeatedly that he was totally be- hind comparative negligence and had
already told every single business lobby- ist that had come to visit him that they were wasting their time by talking with him about it.
A hearing on the bill occurred before
the Senate Judicial Proceedings Commit- tee on March 1, 2001, and everyone – both friend and foe – acknowledged this as the best presentation ever for this pro- posal. Senator Green introduced the legislation with a superb seven minute power point presentation that he had pre- pared. Four citizens denied justice and fairness by contributory negligence in cases tried to verdicts all told their sto- ries. Steve Markey, Jr., a 25 year defense attorney for State Farm and other insur- ance companies eloquently set forth his long- standing dissatisfaction with the concept which he was obliged to use on his clients behalf, but which he knew in his heart was unjust. Even senators who were traditional foes on this bill asked the opposition to produce evidence that the “sky had fallen” in the 46 other states with comparative negligence.
At the conclusion of the hearing, we
were cautiously optimistic about our pros- pects. We needed six votes on the committee. The three co-sponsors, Leo Green, Clarence Mitchell, IV, and Perry Sfikas, were three votes. Senator Jenny Forehand is a conscientious pro-consumer senator and indicated an inclination to
vote with us. Senator Ralph Hughes had voted both ways on the bill in the past but appeared more receptive (and ulti- mately voted for the bill) in light of Mayor Martin O’Malley of Baltimore City with- drawing his opposition to the bill (as did Montgomery County Executive Doug Duncan and Prince George’s County Ex- ecutive Wayne Currie).
That left the
chairman, Senator Walter Baker, as the possible sixth vote. Senator Baker never commits his vote, but is highly respected for his consistent votes for “fairness” and had been quoted in the Baltimore Sun indicating that he thought insurance com- panies were taking advantage of the contributory negligence doctrine. Under the circumstances, we were very hopeful of six votes, particularly since the Senate President, Mike Miller, was actively sup- porting the bill. Then, on March 13, 2001, Senator Sfikas advised us that he would be voting against the comparative negligence bill. His reason was not on the merits. He told us he had received a telephone call from Peter Angelos urging him to vote against the measure. Mr. Angelos’ concern was that Senate Bill 483, which contained no modification of joint and several liability, could be amended in the House to elimi- nate joint and several liability were it to
(Continued on page 14)
Summer 2001
Trial Reporter
13
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