24/12 - Maryland Courts

More documents

Recommendations

Info

$C:\Documents and Settings\thomast\Local Settings\Temp\c.lotus ...$

governmental immunity from negligence claims. 29 Similarly, other courts have held that a non-profit rescue squad in Maryland is a private entity and not a State actor. Krieger v. Bethesda-Chevy Chase Rescue Squad, Inc., 599 F. Supp. 770, 775 (D.Md. 1984), aff’d,792 F.2d 139 (4 th Cir. 1986). The day after the Utica Mutual opinion was released, a state senator asked legislative staff to draft a bill conferring immunity on volunteer firefighters. 30 The initial version of the bill simply extended local government immunity to volunteer fire companies. As the bill progressed through the Legislature it was rewritten to also include within its scope all fire companies, 31 as well as “rescue” companies and the personnel of fire companies and rescue companies. The revision also elaborated on the bill’s broad immunity from liability for 29 The court noted, however, that volunteer firefighters providing emergency assistance or medical care would potentially have immunity under the Good Samaritan Act, which was then codified at CJ §5-309. 53 Md. App. at 595 n. 5. 30 The Court of Special Appeals opinion mistakenly merges the legislative histories of the Fire and Rescue Act and the Good Samaritan Act, suggesting that the Fire and Rescue Act was first enacted in 1964 and describing it as an offshoot of the Good Samaritan Act. See 203 Md. App. at 214-16 & n. 19. In fact, while the protections from liability provided by the two statutes overlap to some degree, their origins are quite distinct. 31 In Mayor and City Council v. Chase, 360 Md. 121, 123, 756 A.2d 987 (2000), this Court concluded that the revision of the bill broadened its reach to include “municipal fire and rescue departments and their employees, as well as to volunteer fire and rescue companies and their employees.” Similarly, the Attorney General concluded that it would cover an ambulance service run by volunteer firefighters that collected a stipend to cover expenses. Opinion of the Attorney General No. 87-055 (November 17, 1987) (unpublished), 1987 Md AG LEXIS 4. 24
ordinary negligence. 32 In particular, it applied to “any act or omission [of a fire or rescue company or its personnel] in the course of performing their duties” 33 and stated that the immunity trumped other potentially applicable laws (“[n]otwithstanding any other provision of law...”). Proponents of the bill had expressed the concern that, in light of the Utica Mutual decision, “few people would volunteer to serve the fire departments, if they realized that they could be subject to liability for their acts.” Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee, Hearing Summary for Senate Bill 731 (March 30, 1983). As enacted, the bill resembled the broad immunity applicable to governmental entities – not surprising in light of the bill’s purpose to extend (or, in the view of some, restore) such immunity for volunteer fire departments and entities performing similar public functions. Chapter 546, Laws of Maryland 1983. Apart from recodification, the statute remains unchanged since its original passage. 34 As enacted in 1983, the statute also carved out an exception to the broad immunity that it recognized – an exception for liability arising from the negligent operation of a motor 32 The immunity was clearly intended to be broader in scope than that provided by the Good Samaritan Act, which only covered the provision of emergency assistance and medical care and would not, apparently in the appellate court’s view in Utica Mutual, extend to firefighting. See Opinion of the Attorney General No. 87-055 (November 17, 1987) (unpublished), 1987 Md AG LEXIS 4 at *8 n.6. 33 The reference to the performance of “duties,” instead of “during the course of employment,” suggests the performance of a public function and echoes language used in statutes concerning governmental immunity. See CJ §5-522(b) (referring to “scope of public duties” in defining immunity under Maryland Tort Claims Act). 34 The statue was originally codified as CJ §5-309.1. In 1997, it was transferred to a different subtitle with other provisions concerning immunities related to health and public safety and renumbered as CJ §5-604. Chapter 14, §9, Laws of Maryland 1997. 25
Page 1 and 2: TransCare Maryland, Inc. et al. v.
Page 3 and 4: In the parable of the Good Samarita
Page 5 and 6: paramedic employed by Petitioner Tr
Page 7 and 8: TransCare moved for summary judgmen
Page 9 and 10: • keep in mind the statutory cont
Page 11 and 12: (a) A person described in subsectio
Page 13 and 14: CJ §5-603(b)(3) - Text As TransCar
Page 15 and 16: time, the adjective “volunteer”
Page 17 and 18: 1976 bill, who told the Legislature
Page 19 and 20: encompassed the employees of a comp
Page 21 and 22: TransCare’s argument is contrary
Page 23 and 24: organization’s members or employe
Page 25: Under the common law, state and loc
Page 29 and 30: §5-639 (establishing immunity for
Page 31 and 32: out of such agreements are to be
Page 33 and 34: “any act or omission in the cours
Page 35: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF SPECIAL AP

24/12 - Maryland Courts

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?