asserting the usual defenses, the Defendants alleged they had complied with the Act and therefore were entitled to qualified immunity. Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, which the Circuit Court granted. Plaintiff alleged that Defendants had not complied with the Act and that, even if they had, the Act is unconstitutional and therefore unenforceable. As to the compliance issues, the Court of Special Appeals
reversed, holding that Defendants, as a matter of law, failed to comply with the Act and therefore are not entitled to the qualified immunity provided therein. However, as to the constitutional issues, the Court of Special Appeals affirmed, rejecting Plaintiff ’s primary argument that the Act fails to provide an injured party with a remedy in violation of Article 19 of Maryland’s Declaration of Rights which states:
Tat every man, for any injury done to him in his person or property, ought to have remedy by the course of the Law of the land, and ought to have justice and right, freely without sale, fully without any denial, and speedily without delay, according to the Law of the land. (Emphasis added.)
Jackson v. Dackman, 181 Md.App. 546., ___ A.2d ___ (2008). Plaintiff raised other constitutional arguments as well,
which are too numerous to discuss in the limited space provided for this
article. Each side requested certiorari
and both petitions were granted. If the Act is ruled to be unconstitutional, injured children will once again be provided with recourse for injuries sustained at the hands of negligent landlords. All involved in this field of litigation are anxiously awaiting the Court’s decision. Te second case currently before Maryland’s high court
is Allen v. Dackman, 184 Md.App. 1, ___ A.2d ___ (2009). In this case, the issue before the court is the definition of the word “owner” as that term is used in the Baltimore City Housing Code. Argument is set for December 3, 2009. Te Code defines “owner” as follows: any person, firm, corporation, guardian, conservator, receiver, trustee, executor, or other judicial officer, who . . . owns, holds, or controls the whole or any part of the freehold or leasehold title to any dwelling or dwelling unit, with or without accompanying actual possession thereof ” (emphasis added). As can be seen, when defining the word “owner,” the Baltimore City Council did not limit “ownership” to mere possession of legal title. Instead, in an effort to effectuate the remedial purpose of the Code, Code at § 103, it enacted an expansive definition of “owner,” including not only those who “own” property, but also those who “control” the title. In Allen, Plaintiff sued the Defendant for her injuries
caused by lead-poisoning. Defendant was not the titled owner of the property, but, according to Plaintiff, was nonetheless an “owner” of the subject property because he “controlled”
Trial Reporter / Winter 2010 27
Since 1972 *Gold Sponsor* Maryland Association for Justice
• Telephone Systems • VoIP / IP / Digital / Hybrid • Video Conferencing • Audio & Web Conferencing
Mark Wilson 443-589-2460 (direct) 1-888-MCENROE (623-6763)
McEnroe Voice & Data, Inc. Hunt Valley, MD & Vienna, VA
*Servicing MD, DC, VA & PA
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 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68