Case Title: Jones v. Prince George's County

Citation: 378 Md. 98

Docket Number: 42/02

State: maryland

Court: Maryland Supreme Court

Date: 2003-11-13T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND
No. 42
September Term, 2002
_________________________________________
PRINCE CARMEN JONES, SR., et al.
v.
PRINCE GEOR GE’S COUNTY,
MARYLAND, et al..
__________________________________________
Bell, C.J.,
        Eldridge
       
Raker
Wilner
Cathell
Harrell
Battaglia, 
                                
         JJ.
__________________________________________
Opinion by Eldridge, J.
_________________________________________
Filed: November 13, 2003
1
This case does not involve a survival action pursuant to § 6-401(a) of the Courts and Judicial
Proceedings Article and Code (1974, 2001 Repl. Vol.), § 7-401(y) of the Estates and Trust Article.
The principal issue in this case concerns the proper party or parties to bring a
wrongful death action, under Maryland Code (1974, 2002 Repl. Vol.), § 3-901 et seq.
of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article, where some of the alleged wrongful acts
occurred in Maryland, where other alleged wrongful acts took place in Virginia, and
where the death occurred in Virginia.1  We shall hold that Maryland law determines the
threshold matter of whether a particular party may bring the suit.  We shall also hold
that the Circuit Court erred in ruling that Virginia tort law applied to the alleged
wrongful acts of all of the defendants.  In addition, we shall conclude that the Circuit
Court improperly dismissed the action on the ground of forum non conveniens.
I.
Since the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County granted a motion for
summary judgment dismissing the plaintiffs’ action as to all defendants, we shall set
forth the facts of the case in a light most favorable to the plaintiffs.  Rite Aid v. Hagley,
374 Md. 665, 684, 824 A.2d 107, 118 (2003) (“factual disputes, and the inferences
reasonably to be drawn from the facts, are resolved in favor of the party opposing
summary judgment and against the moving party”); Messing v. Bank of America, 373
Md. 672, 683-684, 821 A.2d 22, 28 (2003); Teamsters v. Corroon Corp., 369 Md. 724,
728, 802 A.2d 1050, 1052 (2002); Home For Incurables v. Maryland Medical System
-2-
2
The plaintiffs’ allegations in this respect are as follows:
“Prince Jones pulled his Jeep onto Beechwood Lane, the street where his fiancee,
Candace Jackson, lived, and then turned onto Spring Terrace and into a driveway on
that street.  He apparently realized he was being followed and was trying to avoid
leading his pursuer to his fiancee’s house.”
Corp., 369 Md. 67, 70, 797 A.2d 746, 747 (2002); Lovelace v. Anderson, 366 Md. 690,
695, 785 A.2d 726, 728-729 (2001) (“as the tort action against the defendants . . . was
decided by a grant of the defendants’ motions for summary judgment, we must review
the facts, and all inferences therefrom, in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs”).
On September 1, 2000, Corporal Carlton B. Jones and Sergeant Alexandre
Bailey, of the Prince George’s County Police Department, driving separate vehicles,
followed a vehicle driven by Prince Carmen Jones, Jr. from the District of Columb ia
into Prince George’s County, Maryland, back through the District of Columb ia and into
Fairfax County, Virginia.   Prince Carmen Jones, Jr. was a resident of Maryland and
was driving to Virginia in order to visit his fiancee, Candace Jackson, who resided in
Virginia.  The police officers were each driving unmarked sports utility vehicles.
When Prince Carmen Jones, Jr. pulled into a driveway in a street in Fairfax County,
Virginia, Corporal Jones pulled up behind him and blocked his exit.2  Corporal Jones
exited his vehicle, exhibited his weapon, but allegedly failed to identify himself as a
police officer.  Prince Carmen Jones, Jr. attempted to flee the scene, and Corporal Jones
fired sixteen shots at him, five of which hit Prince Carmen Jones, Jr. in the back, and
one in the arm.  Sergeant Bailey was not on the scene at this time.  Prince Carmen
Jones, Jr. died a short time later in Virginia.
-3-
3
Subsequently, the Orphans’ Court of Prince George’s County appointed Prince Carmen Jones,
Jr.’s father, Prince Carmen Jones, Sr. as co-personal representative.  The record in this case indicates
that the Orphans’ Court’s action in this regard was appealed to the Circuit Court for Prince George’s
County, and that the appeal is still pending.
Following the death of Prince Carmen Jones, Jr. his mother, Mabel S. Jones, was
appointed, by the Register of Wills of Prince George’s County, Maryland, to be the
personal representative of Prince Carmen Jones, Jr.’s intestate estate.3  At the time of
his death, Prince Carmen Jones, Jr. was unmarried but engaged to be married to
Candace Jackson, the mother of Nina Jones.  Nina had been  born on October 2, 1999,
and Prince Carmen Jones, Jr. had openly acknowledged her as his daughter.  Candace
Jackson consented to Mabel being the personal representative on behalf of her daughter
as a beneficiary of the estate of Prince Carmen Jones, Jr.
Prince Carmen Jones, Sr., the father of Prince Carmen Jones, Jr., as co-guardian
of Nina Jones and in his individual capacity, and Candace Jackson, as guardian and
next friend of Nina Jones, filed this wrongful death action in the Circuit Court for
Prince George’s County against Corporal Carlton Jones, Sergeant Alexandre Bailey,
Prince George’s County Chief of Police John S. Farrell, the Prince George’s County
Police Department, and Prince George’s County, Maryland.  Pursuant to Maryland Rule
15-1001(b), the action was also to the use of Mabel S. Jones, the mother of Prince
Carmen Jones, Jr.  In the complaint, the plaintiffs alleged that Corporal Carlton Jones
used excess force and that 
“Corporal Jones and Sergeant Bailey were grossly negligent and
reckless in multiple ways that led to the death of Prince Jones.
-4-
This misconduct included: (1) initiating and continuing the
surveillance of Prince Jones without any basis to believe that he
had committed or was about to commit any crime; (2) Corporal
Jones’s initiating an unnecessary and unlawful encounter with
Prince Jones in the driveway on Spring Terrace in Fairfax,
Virginia, by blocking Mr. Jones’s vehicle with his own vehicle; (3)
Corporal Jones’s unlawful display of a handgun coupled with his
failure to properly identify himself as a police officer; (4) Corporal
Jones’s mishandling of his encounter on Spring Terrace with
Prince Jones that foreseeably escalated into a violent altercation;
(5) Sergeant Bailey’s failure to properly supervise Corporal Jones
during this episode.”
The complaint further asserted that Sergeant Bailey, the Prince George’s County
Chief of Police, the Prince George’s County Police Departm ent, and Prince George’s
County were vicariously liable for Corporal Jones’s actions under the doctrine of
respondeat superior.  In addition, the complaint alleged that these same defendants
were directly liable for their own tortious conduct.  The plaintiffs contended that
Corporal Jones’s use of excessive force was “part of a pattern of excessive force by
Prince George’s police officers” and was “the result of a municipal policy and custom,
implemented and controlled by Chief Farrell, of providing inadequate training and
supervision for its officers in how to handle street encounters with civilians without
unnecessary use of lethal force.”  It was alleged that the Prince George’s County Police
Department “had a policy of tolerating and even encouraging these episodes of
excessive force by failing to investigate and take appropriate disciplinary and
restraining actions against the officers involved,” and that the Police Chief “knew . . .
that county police officers were repeatedly injuring civilians by use of excessive force.”
-5-
4
Actually, under Virginia law, a wrongful death action may be brought in Virginia only by one
who has qualified under Virginia law as the personal representative.  One who has qualified as a
personal representative in another state, but has not qualified under Virginia law, “does not have
standing to maintain” a wrongful death action under the Virginia Wrongful Death Act.  Fowler v.
Winchester Medical Center, Inc., 266 Va. 131, 133, 580 S.E.2d 816, 817 (2003).
The plaintiffs claimed that Prince George’s County’s failure and/or refusal to provide
proper supervision and training to its police officers “led directly to the death of Prince
Jones, Jr.”  The complaint also alleged violations of Prince Carmen Jones, Jr.’s
constitutional rights under Articles 24 and 26 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights.
The complaint asserted that some of “the wrongful conduct causing the death of
Prince Jones occurred in Virginia” and was, therefore, governed by “Virginia
substantive law.”  The complaint also asserted that, “because some of the negligent and
wrongful conduct described herein occurred in Marylan d,” to some “extent . . . this
action is . . . governed by Maryland substantive law.”  The plaintiffs sought both
compensatory and punitive damages.
Mabel S. Jones, whom the Prince George’s County Register of Wills had
appointed to be personal representative of the estate of Prince Carmen Jones, Jr., filed
a motion to intervene which the Circuit Court granted.  Mabel Jones then filed a motion
for summary judgment seeking dismissal of the plaintiffs’ entire action on the ground
that Virginia law controlled and that, under Virginia law, she, as the personal
representative of Prince Carmen Jones, Jr.’s estate, was the only person authorized to
bring a wrongful death action.4  In her motion for summary judgment, Mabel Jones
stated that she had brought a wrongful death action, based on the death of Prince
-6-
5
In response to Mabel Jones’s motion, the plaintiffs asserted that the defendants had moved to
dismiss the District of Columbia action for lack of jurisdiction and for improper venue.  As far as
the record in this case shows, that motion is still pending.
6
See, however, n.4, supra. 
7
The court did not explain what evidence and “witnesses” were located in Virginia.  The record
in the present case does not indicate that there were any witnesses to the shooting other than
Corporal Jones whose address is in Maryland.
Carmen Jones, Jr., in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.5
The defendants Carlton Jones, Alexandre Bailey, Police Chief John Farrell, the Prince
George’s County Police Departm ent, and Prince George’s County also sought a
dismissal of the plaintiffs’ action on the ground of forum non conveniens.
As earlier indicated, the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County granted Mabel
Jones’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed the entire action.  The Circuit
Court held that, “[u]nder Maryland law, in a wrongful death action where the wrongful
death occurs in another State, ‘a Maryland Court shall apply the substantive law of that
jurisdiction.’” The court went on to hold that the proper party to bring a wrongful death
action was a matter of substantive law which was controlled by the law of Virginia, and
that, under Virginia law, only Mabel Jones was entitled to bring the action.6  The
Circuit Court also agreed with the defendants’ “position that Virginia is a more
convenient forum” because “[t]he shooting occurred in Virginia.  Plaintiff Nina Jones
and her mother reside in Virginia.  Virginia law will govern this case, and witnesses
and key evidence are located in Virginia.”7
The plaintiffs appealed to the Court of Special Appeals, challenging all three
-7-
8
The plaintiffs’ brief presented the following three arguments:
“I.  The Lower Court’s Decision to Apply Virginia Law and Thereby Rule that
the Decedent’s Family Members Lacked Standing to Bring Wrongful Death Claims
Under Maryland Law was Error.  Under the Maryland’s Wrongful Death Statute,
Standing to Bring Wrongful Death Claims is a Procedural Issue and is to be Decided
by Maryland Law.
“II.  The Lower Court Erroneously Construed Maryland’s Wrongful Death
Statute to Apply the Law of the State Where Death Occurred.  Instead, According to
the Statute, the Law of the State in Which the Wrongful ‘Act’ or ‘Neglect’ Occurred
is to be Applied.
“III.  The Lower Court Erred in Dismissing Claims on the Basis of Forum Non
Conveniens: Substantial Justice Does Not Require that the Case Be Tried in Another
Forum.”
rulings by the Circuit Court. 8  Prior to oral argument in that intermediate appellate
court, we issued a writ of certiorari.  Jones v. Prince George’s County, 369 Md. 570,
801 A.2d 1031 (2002).  We shall address all three issues raised by the plaintiffs,
although not in the same order.
II.
In a Maryland wrongful death action, based upon a wrongful act occurring
outside of Maryland, the Maryland wrongful death statute itself specifies which
jurisdiction’s law shall govern.  Section 3-903 of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings
Article of the Code states as follows:
“§ 3-903.  When wrongful act occurs outside of Maryland.
“(a) Application of substantive law of another state.  – If the
wrongful act occurred in another state, the District of Columbia, or
a territory of the United States, a Maryland court shall apply the
substantive law of that jurisdiction.
-8-
“(b) Maryland court to apply own rules of pleading and
procedure. – Notwithstanding the fact that the wrongful act
occurred in another jurisdiction, a Maryland court in which the
action is pending shall apply its own rules of pleading and
procedure.”
Consequently, the Circuit Court erred in holding that, “where the wrongful death
occurs in another State, ‘a Maryland Court shall apply the substantive law of that
jurisdiction.’” (Emphasis added).  Under the plain language of the statute, it is the place
of the wrongful act, and not the place of the wrongful death, which determines the
substantive tort law to be applied in a particular wrongful death action.  See Powell v.
Erb, 349 Md. 791, 801, 709 A.2d 1294, 1300 (1998).
This choice of law principle was illustrated by a case in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, Farwell v. Chong H. Un, M.D., Linwood W. Briggs,
M.D., 902 F.2d 282 (4th Cir. 1990).  In Farwell, a resident of Maryland, suffering from
a mental disorder or disease, was treated in Maryland by one of the defendant
physicians, was treated in Delaware by the other defendant physician, and thereafter
committed suicide in Pennsylvania.  The decedent’s widow brought a wrongful death
action, based on diversity of citizenship, in the United States District Court for the
District of Maryland, against both physicians, alleging that their negligent treatment
of the decedent in Maryland and in Delaware proximately caused his death in
Pennsylvania.  In rejecting an argument that Pennsylvania substantive tort law should
apply, the United States Court of Appeals emphasized that “Maryland’s wrongful death
statute speaks directly to the choice of law rule to be applied in such cases,” 902 F.2d
-9-
at 287.  The court held that, as to the claim against Dr. Un, the statute directly required
“application of the law of Delaware where occurred the ‘wrongful act’ charged to him.”
Ibid.  The Court continued (ibid.):
“[The statute] does not speak directly to the claim against
Dr. Briggs, for the ‘wrongful act’ charged to him occurred in
Maryland and not ‘in another state.’  But by the strongest
implication it points to Maryland as the proper source of law for
deciding the Briggs claim.  This is because the Maryland statute
specifically identifies the locus of the ‘wrongful act’ rather than
the locus of death as the critical choice of law determinant in
wrongful death actions with multi-state connections.  In this
respect, this statute makes specific for wrongful death cases the
‘place-of-wrong’s-standard of care’ exception to the classic lex loci
rule, thereby displacing in this context the ‘last-act-to-complete-
the-tort’ aspect of that rule.”
See also Sacra v. Sacra, 48 Md. App. 163, 426 A.2d 7, cert. denied, 290 Md. 720
(1981) (Wrongful death action based on an automobile collision in Delaware near the
Maryland border, with the vehicle carrying the decedent being propelled into Maryland
where it struck a Maryland utility pole, thereby causing the death in Maryland, and the
court applied the substantive tort law of Delaware); White v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco
Company, 109 F. Supp. 2d 424, 427 (D. Md. 2000) (While the decedent died in
Pennsylvania, and while Pennsylvania law would have been applied under the normal
lex loci rule, in light of the Maryland wrongful death statute “this Court concludes that
Maryland law applies because most of the wrongful acts charged to defendants
occurred in Maryland”).  Cf. Philip Morris v. Angeletti, 358 Md. 689, 745, 752 A.2d
200, 231 (2000) (The case did not involve a statute specifying the choice of law, and
-10-
9
As to Sergeant Bailey, the record indicates that he was initially following Prince Carmen Jones,
Jr., in a separate vehicle, but presumably along with Corporal Carlton Jones.  The record further
indicates that he was not on the scene when the shooting occurred.  At what point Sergeant Bailey
and Corporal Jones parted company is not disclosed by the record.  Furthermore, it is not clear where
Sergeant Bailey’s alleged negligent supervision of Corporal Jones occurred.
Judge Raker for the Court pointed out that, under Maryland common law choice of law
principles, “when the events giving rise to a suit occur in a number of states . . .[, a]s
a general rule, the place of the tort is considered to be the place of injury”).
Accordingly, in a Maryland wrongful death action, where a particular
defendant’s alleged wrongful act or acts all occurred in Maryland, the substantive tort
law of Maryland applies and not the law of another state where the death occurred.  In
the case at bar, therefore, the claims directly against the Chief of Police, the Police
Departm ent, Prince George’s County, Maryland, and possibly Sergeant Bailey, based
on alleged tortious “municipal policy and custom ,” negligent training, and negligent
supervision, all of which occurred in Maryland, are governed by substantive Maryland
tort law.9
On the other hand, the claim against Corporal Carlton Jones was based on
alleged wrongful acts which, at least for the most part, occurred in Virginia.  As the
plaintiffs have consistently conceded, the wrongful death action against Corporal Jones
should be governed by Virginia substantive tort law.  White v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco
Company, supra, 109 F. Supp. 2d at 427.  Furthermore, the wrongful death claims
against the other defendants, to the extent that the plaintiffs seek to hold them
vicariously liable, under the doctrine of respondeat superior, for Corporal Jones’s
-11-
10
Section 3-904 of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article provides in part as follows:
“§ 3-904. Action for wrongful death.
“(a) Primary beneficiaries. –  (1) Except as provided in paragraphs (2) and (3) of
this subsection, an action under this subtitle shall be for the benefit of the wife,
husband, parent, and child of the deceased person. 
(2) A parent may not be a beneficiary in a wrongful death action for the death
of a child of the parent if: 
(i) 1. The parent is convicted under §§ 3-303 through 3-308, § 3-323, §
3-601, or § 3-602 of the Criminal Law Article; or 
2. The parent committed an act prohibited under §§ 3-303 through 3-
308, § 3-323, § 3-601, or § 3-602 of the Criminal Law Article; 
(ii) The other parent of the child is the victim of the crime or act described
under item (i) of this paragraph; and 
(iii) The other parent of the child is a child of the parent. 
(3) (i) An action under this subtitle for the wrongful death of a child caused
by the parent of the child allowed under the provisions of § 5-806 of this article may
not be for the benefit of that parent of the deceased child. 
(ii) An action under this subtitle for the wrongful death of a parent caused
by a child of the parent allowed under the provisions of § 5-806 of this article may
not be for the benefit of that child of the deceased parent. 
“(b)  Secondary beneficiaries. – If there are no persons who qualify under
subsection (a), an action shall be for the benefit of any person related to the deceased
person by blood or marriage who was substantially dependent upon the deceased. 
“(c) Damages to be divided among beneficiaries. – (1) In an action under this
subtitle, damages may be awarded to the beneficiaries proportioned to the injury
resulting from the wrongful death. 
(2) Subject to § 11-108(d)(2) of this article, the amount recovered shall be
divided among the beneficiaries in shares directed by the verdict.”
alleged tortious acts, should be governed by the substantive law of Virginia.
III.
While the Maryland wrongful death statute mandates the general choice of law
principles and specifies who are the beneficiaries of the action,10 the present statute is
silent with regard to the person or persons who have standing to bring the action.
Nevertheless, both the history of the statute and the general Maryland choice of law
principles concerning the right to bring an action disclose that, for the purposes of the
-12-
wrongful death statute, this is a procedural issue governed by the law of the forum and
not a substantive issue governed by the law of another state where the wrongful act may
have occurred.  Consequently, the Circuit Court erred in dismissing the action on the
ground that the plaintiffs lacked standing.
A.
The Maryland wrongful death statute was enacted by Ch. 299 of the Acts of
1852, and it was based on the Lord Campbell’s Act enacted by the British Parliament
in 1846.  The original Maryland statute did not deal with the applicable law if the
wrongful acts or death occurred outside of Maryland.  The statute did, however,
expressly provide that the action “shall be brought by and in the name of the State of
Maryland, for the use of the person entitled to damages . . . .”  Ch. 299 of the Acts of
1852, § 2.  
In Ash, Administratrix v. Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company, 72 Md. 144,
19 A. 643 (1890), the decedent, a citizen of Maryland, died in West Virginia “by means
of the negligent and improper structure of one of the bridges on the road of the
defendant, in the State of West Virginia.”  72 Md. at 145, 19 A. at 644.  The decedent’s
administratrix, appointed in Maryland, brought a wrongful death action against the
Railroad Company in the Circuit Court for Cecil County.  Under the West Virginia
wrongful death statute, the personal representative was the proper person to bring the
action.  This Court, in an opinion by Chief Judge Alvey, held that the action could not
be maintained either under the Maryland wrongful death statute or under the West
-13-
Virginia wrongful death statute.  The Court took the position that it could not (72 Md.
at 147, 19 A. at 644)
“attempt to give extra-territorial force to our statute, and to make
it apply to acts and transactions occurring in other States.  And if
our statute cannot be so extended and applied, there can be no
reason why statutes of other States, not similar in provisions to our
own, though belonging to the same general class of legislation,
should be allowed extra-territorial force and operation, by the
courts of this State.”
The Court, after discussing differences between the Maryland and West Virginia
statutes, then drew a distinction between common law tort actions and statutory tort
actions (72 Md. at 148-149, 19 A. at 645):
“In Rorer on Inter-State Law, 144, 145, upon review of the
authorities, the author states his conclusions to be, that in all purely
personal actions of a transitory nature for torts at common law a
citizen of a State may sue a citizen of another State in the courts of
such other State, or of any State wherein he may reside, or may be
found and served with process, without regard to the place or State
in which the injury may have been inflicted.  But that where certain
acts are made wrongs by statute, which were not such theretofore,
or where remedies additional to those which existed at common
law are provided by statute, advantage can be taken of these new
and additional remedies only within the territory or locality in
which the statute has force.  These constitute new rights, so to
speak, and depend for their enforcement always upon the statutes
by which they are created.  And such statutes will be enforced only
by the courts of the State wherein they are enacted.”
This Court adhered to the holding in Ash for the next 46 years.  See, e.g.,
Dronenburg v. Harris, 108 Md. 597, 608-612, 71 A. 81, 83-85 (1908); London
-14-
Guarantee & Accident Company v. Balgowan Steamship Company, 161 Md. 145, 147-
150, 155 A. 334, 335-336 (1931) (refusing to depart from the Ash holding despite its
“inconsisten[cy] with the present trend of the law”); Davis v. Ruzicka, 170 Md. 112,
114, 183 A. 569, 570, cert. denied, 298 U.S. 671, 56 S.Ct. 943, 80 L.Ed. 1394 (1936)
(“[T]he courts of this state may not be employed to enforce generally legislation of this
character”).  See also Olewiler v. Fullerton Supply Company, 162 F. Supp. 563 (D.Md.
1958), and Kaufmann v. Service Trucking Co., Inc., 139 F. Supp. 1 (D. Md. 1956), for
discussions concerning the history of this issue.
The 1936 decision in Davis v. Ruzicka, supra, 170 Md. 112, 183 A. 569,
apparently prompted legislative action.  By Ch. 495 of the Acts of 1937, the General
Assemb ly added a new section to the wrongful death statute which provided as follows
(Code (1935), Article 67, § 1A):
“1A.  In any action instituted in the Courts of this State where
it shall appear that the death of a person has been caused by the
wrongful act, neglect or default of another person, firm or
corporation, and such wrongful act, neglect, or default shall have
occurred outside of the State of Maryland, whether in another state,
the District of Columb ia or territory of the United States, the
Courts of this State shall apply the law of such other state, District
of Columb ia or territory of the United States, to the facts of the
particular case, as though such foreign law were the law of this
State, provided, however, that the rules of pleading and procedure
effective in the Court of this State in which the action is pending
govern and be so applied as to give effect to the rights and
obligations created by and existing under the laws of the foreign
jurisdiction in which the wrongful act, neglect or default occurred;
provided, however, that nothing in this section shall apply to
causes of action arising prior to June 1, 1937.”
-15-
This provision, later re-numbered as § 2, is essentially the same as the current § 3-903
of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article.  
In 1947, the General Assemb ly for the first time addressed the question of the
proper party to bring the wrongful death action where the wrongful act occurred outside
of Maryland.  Ch. 740 of the Acts of 1947 added new § 2A to the wrongful death
statute (then Article 67 of the Code) which provided as follows:
“2A.  In all actions instituted in the courts of this State under
Section 2 of this Article[, authorizing action where ‘the wrongful
act . . . shall have occurred’ outside of the State of Maryland], the
proper person to bring the action shall be determined by applying
the following rules:
“(a) Any person who is entitled to bring suit under the laws
of the jurisdiction wherein the wrongful death occurred may bring
suit in Maryland, upon proof of his qualifications and authority.
“(b) If the laws of the State wherein the wrongful death
occurred provide for suit to be brought in the name of the State,
District or Territory, as the case may be, then suit may be brought
in Maryland in the name of this State on behalf of the beneficiaries
protected under the foreign statute.
“(c) The provisions of this section shall not in any way be
construed to apply to actions in which service of process can be
obtained in the jurisdiction where the cause of action arose or
where the plaintiff resides.”
This provision was subsequently re-numbered as § 3.  See Code (1951), Article 67, § 3.
As of May 31, 1962, § 2 of the wrongful death statute authorized an action where
a wrongful act outside of Maryland caused a death and the same section specified what
law should be applied.  Section 3 set forth the “rules” as to the persons entitled to bring
-16-
an action pursuant to § 2.  Section 4, inter alia, provided, when the wrongful act
occurred in Maryland, that the action should be brought in the name of the State of
Maryland.  See Code (1957, 1961 Cum. Supp. Part 2), Article 67, §§ 2, 3, and 4.
The most significant legislative change, with respect to the issue now before this
Court, occurred in 1962.  Ch. 36 of the Acts of 1962, effective June 1, 1962, was a
comprehensive enactment which, according to its title, “relat[ed] generally to the
removal of certain procedural matter from the statutory law of the State of Maryland”
so that the procedural matter would be covered by “the Maryland Rules of Proced ure.”
Laws of Maryland 1962 at 91, 99 (emphasis added).  Section 1 of Ch. 36 specifically
repealed Article 67, § 3.  Section 43 of Ch. 36 repealed and re-enacted, with
amendments, Article 67, § 4, to delete the provision that the wrongful death action
“shall be brought by and in the name of the State of Maryland for the use of the person
or persons entitled to damages.”  Laws of Maryland 1962, supra, at 101, 156.
Ch. 36 of the Acts of 1962, therefore, represented an unequivocal legislative
determination that standing to bring a wrongful death action was a procedural matter.
The repeal of Article 67, § 3, which had set forth the standing rules for an action under
Article 67, § 2, involving an out-of-state wrongful act, demonstrated that standing was
viewed as a rule of “procedure” for purposes of § 2's choice of law provision.  The
Legislature did not repeal article 67, § 3, because it believed that the law of the state
where the wrongful act occurred should govern standing.  Instead, the Legislature
repealed § 3 because it viewed standing as a procedural matter to be governed by the
-17-
Maryland Rules of Procedure.  No subsequent enactment by the General Assemb ly has
suggested any different legislative intent concerning this issue.
The Maryland Rules of Procedure, prior to January 1, 1997, provided in Rules
Q 40 and Q 41 as follows:
“Rule Q40.  Application of Rule.
“The Maryland Rules shall apply to all actions for wrongful
death brought under Code, §§ 3-901 through 3-904 of the Courts
Article and under Article 101, Section 58, whether the cause of
action arose in this State or elsewh ere.”
“Rule Q41.  Plaintiffs.
“a.  Cause of Action in This State.
“Where such cause of action arose in this State all persons who
are or may be entitled to damages by reason thereof shall be named
as plaintiffs whether or not they joined in bringing the action;
however, the names of those who did not join in bringing the action
shall be preceded by the words: ‘to the use of . . . . . . . . .’”
“b.  Cause of Action in Foreign Jurisdiction.
“Where such cause of action arose in a foreign jurisdiction, any
person who is entitled to bring suit under the laws of such
jurisdiction may bring suit in this State.”
Even though the General Assemb ly had treated standing to bring a wrongful death
action as a procedural matter, and even though § 3-903(b) of the Courts and Judicial
Proceedings Article specified that Maryland rules of procedure would govern
procedural matters when the wrongful act occurred in another jurisdiction, Maryland
procedural law, namely Rule Q41b, incorporated by reference the standing law of the
-18-
state where the wrongful act occurred.  Accordingly, if the events in the case at bar had
taken place before 1997, the plaintiffs would not have been able to bring the claims
based upon Corporal Jones’s wrongful acts in Virginia.  This would not have been on
the ground that standing was a substantive matter governed by foreign law.  It would
have been on the ground that Maryland procedural law provided for different plaintiffs
for claims based on acts in Virginia.
In 1995, however, the Court of Appeals Standing Committee on Rules of
Practice and Procedure (hereafter referred to as the “Rules Committee”), as part of a
comprehensive re-codification of the Maryland Rules of Procedure concerning special
proceedings, recommended to the Court of Appeals that Rule Q41a in substance be
incorporated into new Rule 15-1001(b) which would provide as follows:
“(b) Plaintiff.  If the wrongful act occurred in this State, all
persons who are or may be entitled by law to damages by reason of
the wrongful death shall be named as plaintiffs whether or not they
join in the action.  The words “to the use of” shall precede the
name of any person named as a plaintiff who does not join in the
action.”
See the 132nd Report of the Standing Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure,
22 Maryland Register, Issue 24, P-110 (November 24, 1995).  At the same time, the
Rules Committee recommended that Rule Q41b, concerning standing when the
wrongful act occurred outside of this State, be repealed and not be incorporated in a
new rule.  A “Reporter’s Note,” which had been prepared for a subcommittee of the
Rules Committee, stated: “Section b of Rule Q41 is not incorporated, because believed
-19-
11
Article IV, § 18(a), of the Constitution of Maryland.
substantive in nature.”  The Reporter’s Note did not explain why the issue of standing
to bring the action was regarded as “procedural” if the wrongful act occurred in
Maryland but “substantive” if the wrongful act occurred outside of Maryland.  The
minutes of the Rules Committee’s meeting, at which the full Committee decided to
approve of and forward these recommendations to the Court of Appeals, disclose that
there was no discussion whatsoever of this issue.
The Court of Appeals, at a meeting in 1996, adopted these recommendations by
the Rules Committee, with the new special proceeding rules to be effective January 1,
1997.  The minutes of the Court of Appeals’ meeting also reveal no discussion
whatsoever of the standing issue in wrongful death cases.  Despite the view expressed
in the Reporter’s Note, the General Assemb ly has not enacted a statute dealing with
standing in wrongful death actions.
In sum, there are today no Maryland statutory provisions with respect to standing
to bring a wrongful death action.  This confirms the General Assembly’s 1962
determination that standing to bring a wrongful death action is a procedural matter to
be covered by rules and not an issue of substantive law.  The Maryland Rules of
Procedure adopted by the Court of Appeals, which are constitutionally limited to “rules
and regulations concerning the practice and procedure in and the administration of the
appellate courts and the other courts of this State,” 11 provide, in Rule 15-1001(b), that
the statutory beneficiaries are the persons with standing to bring a wrongful death
-20-
action “[i]f the wrongful act occurred in this State . . . .”  There is no longer a rule
specifying standing to bring a wrongful death action when the wrongful act occurs
outside of Maryland.
As standing to bring a wrongful death action is a procedural matter within the
meaning of § 3-903 of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article, it is governed by
Maryland law. And because no current Maryland rule or statute covers standing to
bring a wrongful death action based on a wrongful act outside of Maryland, the issue
would logically seem to be governed by Maryland common law standing principles.
Under Maryland common law, standing to bring a judicial action generally
depends on whether one is “aggrieved,” which means whether a plaintiff has “an
interest ‘such that he [or she] is personally and specifically affected in a way different
from . . . the public generally.’” Sugarloaf v. Dept. of Environment, 344 Md. 271, 288,
686 A.2d 605, 614 (1996), quoting Medical Waste v. Maryland Waste, 327 Md. 596,
611 n.9, 612 A.2d 241, 248-249 n.9 (1992) (some internal quotation marks omitted).
Under this principle, the statutory beneficiaries of a wrongful death action are
obviously the persons “aggrieved” and the persons whose interest is greater than that
of anyone else.  Therefore, under the Maryland wrongful death statute and Maryland
standing principles, the plaintiffs were entitled to maintain this action.
B.
Our holding that the right to bring a wrongful death action is a “rule [] of . . .
procedure” within the meaning of § 3-903(b) of the Maryland wrongful death statute,
-21-
and thus is governed by Maryland law, is consistent with general Maryland choice of
law principles.  For example, the issue of whether the statute of limitations bars a
plaintiff’s tort action in a Maryland court is governed by Maryland law and not the law
of another state where the tort occurred.   Doughty v. Prettyman, 219 Md. 83, 88, 148
A.2d 438, 440 (1959).  As Professor Leflar has stated, “[a]ccess to forum courts is a
matter for forum law to determine.”  Leflar, American Conflicts Law, § 127 at 349 (4th
ed. 1986).  
In other contexts, even when the right to bring an action in a Maryland court
might be deemed a substantive matter, we have on policy grounds applied Maryland
law and not the law of another state where the cause of action arose.  “With regard to
the threshold matter of whether the court is open to a particular litigant, obviously the
policy of the forum state is extremely important.” Hauch v. Connor, 295 Md. 120, 133,
453 A.2d 1207, 1214 (1983).  In Hauch, the plaintiffs were passengers in an automobile
driven by the defendant.  The plaintiffs and the defendant were residents of Maryland
and co-employees in Maryland of the same corporation, but they were driving in
Delaware in the course of their employment.  A collision occurred in Delaware,
allegedly because of the defendant’s negligence, and the plaintiffs suffered personal
injuries.  The plaintiffs received workers compensation benefits under Maryland law
and then brought a tort suit against the defendant driver in a Maryland court.  Under
Delaware law, co-employee tort suits are prohibited and workers’ compensation
benefits furnish an exclusive remedy, whereas under Maryland law, such co-employee
-22-
tort actions are permitted.  This Court initially held that, under the rule of lex loci
delicti, “all questions concerning substantive tort law are to be governed by the law of
Delaware, as it is the state where the collision occurred.”  Hauch, 295 Md. at 125, 453
A.2d at 1210.  Nevertheless, because of the public policy of Maryland concerning
entitlement to sue, coupled with the other Maryland contacts, “Maryland . . . law should
determine the threshold question of the right to bring suit in Maryland courts.”  295
Md. at 134, 453 A.2d at 1214.  We re-affirmed the holding of Hauch in Bishop v.
Twiford, 317 Md. 170, 176, 562 A.2d 1238, 1241 (1989), pointing out that “[t]he most
important factor weighing in favor of applying Maryland law is the public policy of
Maryland, the forum state, permitting” the plaintiffs to bring the action.
This Court in Powell v. Erb, supra, 349 Md. 791, 709 A.2d 1294, applied the
Hauch and Bishop principles to a wrongful death action filed in Maryland, even though
the alleged negligent acts and the death occurred in Pennsylvania.  Although
Pennsylvania law would not allow the suit, we held that Maryland law controlled and
that the plaintiffs were entitled to maintain the action.  The Court, in an opinion by
Chief Judge Bell, rejected the defendants’ reliance upon the choice of “substantive
law” provision in § 3-903 of the wrongful death statute, pointing out that the wrongful
death statute does not “purport to deal with what Hauch denominated a threshold issue,
‘whether the court is open to a particular litigant.’” Powell v. Erb, supra, 349 Md. at
801, 709 A.2d at 1299-1300, quoting Hauch, 295 Md. at 133, 453 A.2d at 1214.
Consequently, general Maryland choice of law principles confirm our
-23-
interpretation of the wrongful death statute, that the right to bring the action is
controlled by Maryland law.
IV.
The Circuit Court erred when it alternatively dismissed the case on the ground
of forum non conveniens.  In Maryland, the principle is codified in § 6-104 of the
Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article which states, in pertinent part, as follows:
“§ 6-104.  Stay or dismissal of action which should be heard in
another forum; consolidation of actions in District Court and
circuit court.
“(a) In general. — If a court finds that in the interest of substantial
justice an action should be heard in another forum, the court may
stay or dismiss the action in whole or in part on any conditions it
considers just.” 
The plaintiffs’ choice of forum is not to be lightly disturbed. See Leung v. Nunes,
354 Md. 217, 224-225, 729 A.2d 956, 959-960 (1999), and cases there cited.  See also
Urquhart v. Simmons, 339 Md. 1, 660 A.2d 412 (1995); Johnson v. Searles, 314 Md.
521, 530, 552 A.2d 29, 33 (1989).  A court “must weigh in the balance the convenience
of witnesses and those public-interest factors of systemic integrity and fairness that, in
addition to private concerns, come under the heading of ‘the interest of justice.’” Leung
v. Nunes, 354 Md.  at  224, 729 A.2d at  959 (internal quotations and citations omitted).
Maryland obviously has strong interests in this action.  Denying the plaintiffs
access to the courts of this State implicates important public policy considerations.   In
addition, all of the defendants and the intervenor are Maryland residents, as was the
-24-
decedent.  Perhaps the only witness, the defendant Carlton Jones, is a Maryland
resident.  The sequence of actions that ended in Virginia began in Maryland.  Certain
claims are entirely controlled by Maryland law.  
The intervenor-personal representative has not qualified in Virginia and thus, as
her counsel acknowledged in oral argument before us, could not prosecute the action
in Virginia.  Moreover, no action has been filed in Virginia, and the Virginia two-year
statute of limitations for wrongful death actions has expired.  See § 8.01-244(b) of the
Virginia Code.  The defendants’ counsel at oral argument admitted that no action could
be filed in Virginia unless the bar of limitations were waived.  As this Court held in
Johnson v. Searle, supra, 314 Md. at 523, 552 A.2d at 30, “a circuit court abuses its
discretion by uncond itionally dismissing actions on the ground of forum non
conveniens when the statute of limitations has likely run in the alternative forum.”
This was clearly not an appropriate case for applying the doctrine of forum non
conveniens.
JUDGMENT 
OF 
THE 
CIRCU IT
COURT FOR PRINCE GEOR GE’S
COUNTY REVERSED, AND CASE
REMANDED TO THAT COURT FOR
F U R T H E R  
P R O C E E D I N G S
CONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION.
APPELLEES TO PAY COSTS.