Opinion ID: 1902359
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Comity for Sister State Statute Forum State's Public Policy Controls

Text: The State of Maryland and Knapp have a two-part alternative contention to their unsuccessful Full Faith and Credit Clause argument. They contend that, as a matter of comity, the State of Delaware should either: (1) recognize their assertion of absolute immunity under the Maryland Torts Claims Act, because this litigation was not filed in a Maryland forum; or (2) cap their liability at the $50,000 limit in the Maryland Torts Claims Act. [44] It is interesting to note that when the issue of comity was discussed in the Maryland Attorney General Opinion to the Sheriff of Montgomery County, which was not cited to this Court, a Delaware Supreme Court opinion was relied upon to explain that [c]omity permits one state to give effect to the laws of a sister state, not out of obligation but out of respect and deference. [45] The issue of having a forum state recognize the sovereign immunity of a sister state as a matter of comity, was also addressed authoritatively by the United States Supreme Court in 1979, when it decided Nevada v. Hall : The intimate union of these states, as members of the same great political family; the deep and vital interests which bind them so closely together; should lead us, in the absence of proof to the contrary, to presume a greater degree of comity, and friendship, and kindness towards one another, than we should be authorized to presume between foreign nations. And when (as without doubt must occasionally happen) the interest or policy of any state requires it to restrict the rule, it has but to declare its will, and the legal presumption is at once at an end. [46] In Hall, the United States Supreme Court added that while wise policy might dictate recognition of the limitation on immunity, the federal system would not intrude upon a state's decision not to extend recognition on public policy grounds. [47] Notably, the California Supreme Court had stated: We have concluded that sister states who engage in activities within California are subject to our laws with respect to those activities and are subject to suit in California courts with respect to those activities. When the sister state enters into activities in this state, it is not exercising sovereign power over the citizens of this state and is not entitled to the benefits of the sovereign immunity doctrine as to those activities unless this state has conferred immunity by law or as a matter of comity. [48] Following Hall, several state supreme courts have addressed the issue of recognizing another state's sovereign immunity for official acts that caused injury in the forum state. The Iowa Supreme Court, for example, held that neither the Full Faith and Credit Clause nor the doctrine of comity required the Iowa courts to dismiss the State of Illinois from a lawsuit filed in Iowa. [49] There, the plaintiff-administrators alleged that the State of Illinois' negligent performance of a contract with Iowa to maintain a certain bridge between the states had been the proximate cause of the deaths at issue in the litigation. [50] The State of Illinois argued that it was entitled to have its liability capped at the limitation in the Illinois' statute of $100,000 per plaintiff. [51] With regard to the Full Faith and Credit Clause, the Iowa Supreme Court rejected the State of Illinois' attempt to confine Hall to its facts, noting [u]nder Hall, [Illinois'] policy [of limiting recovery if the action were brought in Illinois] is not of sufficient magnitude to override Iowa's legitimate interest in giving full access and protection in Iowa courts to those injured on Iowa highways. [52] With regard to the issue of recognizing the Illinois statutory limits, as a matter of comity, the Iowa Supreme Court stated: We believe Iowa's interest in full compensation outweighs Illinois' interest in extending its statutory limitation on recovery to its Iowa torts. Iowa's policy is a legitimate attribute of its own sovereignty. [53] The Supreme Court of Kansas began from the premise that a sister state's sovereignty extends only to its territorial boundaries and declined to recognize the claim of sovereign immunity asserted by the State of Missouri. [54] In that case, a Kansas resident alleged that the negligent preparation of an arrest warrant in Missouri was the proximate cause of the plaintiff's false arrest in Kansas. [55] The Kansas Supreme Court stated that when a state or any of its political subdivisions acts within the territorial boundaries of another state, it does not carry with it any of the attributes of sovereignty, and it is subject to the laws of such other state the same as any other proprietor. [56] The majority opinion found a long-recognized public policy in Kansas of compensating its citizens for injuries occurring within the state. [57] It supported this determination by citing both the Kansas long-arm statute and the Kansas Torts Claims Act. [58] The Kansas Supreme Court concluded: To hold that Missouri could not be sued in Kansas would result in granting greater immunity to our sister state than the immunity which our citizens through the legislature have bestowed upon our state government. [59] The issues presented in this appeal are identical to the concerns confronted by the highest courts in Iowa, Kansas, and other states. [60] The accident in this case took place within the State of Delaware. The accident victims, Shepherd and Cline, were Delaware residents at the time of the accident, and remain Delaware residents. They brought suit in Delaware courts. The State of Delaware has a legitimate interest in having its residents, who are victims of auto accidents on its highways, compensated for their injuries to the extent permitted by law. Conversely, the sister sovereign State of Maryland has asked the State of Delaware, as a matter of comity, to either completely deny or limit the monetary damages awarded to Shepherd and Cline on the basis of the Maryland Tort Claims Act. The conflicting interests of the Shepherds in seeking full compensation and the State of Maryland's request for complete or limited relief are diametrically opposed. Since these conflicting requests can not be harmonized, the ultimate question this Court must decide is whether the State of Maryland's request for absolute or limited sovereign immunity for the torts of its agents within the State of Delaware, as a matter of comity, either offends or coincides with the public policy of Delaware. Accordingly, we must examine the public policy of Delaware, in particular, as that public policy is reflected in the legislative enactments of its elected representatives.