CONTROVERSIAL ISSUE

SUMMARY: Since the early 1980's, Congress and state legislatures throughout the United States have struggled to change tort law in a way that would satisfy the concerns of some that the system had become too concerned with compensating plaintiffs at the expense of the larger societal goals, and at the same time provide a forum for deserving plaintiffs to obtain adequate compensation. Most of the attention with regard to torts focused on the following topics: collateral source; comparative negligence; immunity for some categories of defendants; joint and several liability; limits on awards (especially punitive damage awards); "loser pays"; and, standards of proof.

The 1987 General Assembly devoted considerable time and effort to discussion of torts and ways to deal with the dramatic increase in liability insurance rates in the 1980's. Unlike other states, Maryland legislators did not respond to the "crisis" by passing a complete overhaul of the tort system, but chose instead to pass some limits on awards while examining the underlying factors that led to the rapid rise in insurance premiums.

Over the past decade, there have been a broad range of General Assembly proposals to amend tort law, while the courts in Maryland have issued numerous opinions on the same topics. In most instances, the legislature has avoided dramatic changes in this area, preferring instead to let the judicial branch take the lead. Two Court of Appeals’ decisions of particular importance, Owens-Illinois, Inc., et al. v. William Zenobia, Sr., et al. concerning punitive damages, and U.S. v. Glenn D. Striedel, et al. dealing with the legislatively-imposed cap on non-economic damages in wrongful death cases led to several bills in the General Assembly to revise the law in these areas. All but one of these measures, (the successful 1994 bill to raise the cap on non-economic damages to $500,000 per individual/$750,000 to multiple claimants applied prospectively with a $15,000 annual adjustment), have failed.

In other areas of tort law, the General Assembly has made some modest adjustments in immunities for particular groups, but has not adopted comparative negligence, modified joint and several liability, changed the collateral source rule or accepted a "loser pays" approach.

MSBA 2002 POSITION: Oppose major changes in the tort system which unduly restrict individual rights and which unreasonably disrupt traditional common law concepts of the tort system. Support initiatives that expand alternative dispute resolution programs to the extent that these programs do not decrease access to the court system.

SAMPLE LEGISLATION: See specific section in this general area.

Return to 2002 Final State Legislative Program Table of Contents

Back To Top