Opinion ID: 1926173
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Liability For Conduct Of Headly And Singh

Text: The defendants in this case are the State of Maryland and units of the State Government, which we shall refer to collectively as the State. Headly and Singh were not sued individually. The action is for common law negligence, and, to the extent it is based on the conduct of Headly and Singh, the liability sought to be imposed on the State is a vicarious onethe liability of the principal for the negligent acts of its agents. The State has a common law sovereign immunity from such actions, however, except to the extent that the Legislature has waived that immunity by (1) authorizing a suit for damages, and (2) providing for the payment of any resulting judgment. Kee v. State Highway Admin., 313 Md. 445, 455, 545 A.2d 1312, 1317 (1988). The only relevant statute in this case is the Maryland Tort Claims Act (MTCA), found in Maryland Code, §§ 12-101 through 12-110 of the State Government Article and § 5-522 of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article. That Act established a limited waiver of the State's immunity in certain tort actions. Condon v. State, 332 Md. 481, 492, 632 A.2d 753, 758 (1993). Whether the State is liable for the conduct of Headly and Singh depends on whether MTCA applies. In examining MTCA, we must start with the more basic premise that, quite apart from any doctrine of sovereign immunity, vicarious liability does not exist unless the negligent conduct was committed by an employee or agent of the State. Sovereign immunity becomes important, with respect to vicarious liability, only when, under traditional agency law, the negligent actor is an agent of the State. It is then that we must look to MTCA to determine whether the State has waived its immunity as to that conduct or that actor. MTCA does not purport to waive immunity, and thus assume liability, to the full extent of the law of agency, however. Immunity from vicarious liability is waived only to the extent that the tortious conduct is committed by State personnela defined term. See State v. Card, 104 Md. App. 439, 447, 656 A.2d 400, 404, cert. denied, 339 Md. 643, 664 A.2d 886 (1995) (There is nothing in [MTCA] itself, or in its history, suggesting an intent that the State be liable for the conduct of persons other than those included within the definition of `State personnel.'). Accordingly, the State's liability for the conduct of Headly and Singh depends not on whether they were agents of the State in any general sense but whether, at the time of the accident, they were State personnel. The term State personnel is defined in § 12-101(a). It includes a laundry list of officials and employees, but only two categories are relevant heresubsection (a)(1), which includes a State employee or official who is paid in whole or in part by the Central Payroll Bureau in the Office of the Comptroller of the Treasury, and subsection (a)(4), which includes an individual who, without compensation, exercises a part of the sovereignty of the State. Petitioners make a number of claims, some addressing § 12-101(a), some not. Principally, they ignore the limitation put on the waiver of immunity and treat the issue as depending on whether MANG had been federalized or, conversely, remained in State service during the training exercise. Relying on United States v. Hawaii, 832 F.2d 1116 (9th Cir.1987) and Emsley v. Army Nat'l Guard, 106 Wash.2d 474, 722 P.2d 1299 (1986), they contend that members of a State National Guard remain State employees during training sessions and that [t]he record here is devoid of facts as to whether [MANG] was properly federalized during its training at Camp Blanding. The very statement of the argument exposes its fallacy. We are not concerned with whether the two actors were State employees during the training exercise, but with whether, during that exercise, they were State personnel, and therein lies the distinction between this case and the two cited. In the Hawaii case, the plaintiffs were injured when their car was struck by a jeep driven by a sergeant in the Hawaii National Guard who, at the time, was apparently in a training exercise. The plaintiffs sued the United States and Hawaii under their respective tort claims acts. When they dismissed their action against Hawaii, the United States filed a third party claim against the State for contribution. The Government settled with the plaintiffs and then pursued its third party complaint. The driver, the court held, was a Federal employee at the time of the accident and was therefore individually immune from suit under the Federal Drivers' Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2679(b). Neither that fact nor the fact that the Federal Tort Claims Act made the Federal Government liable for acts or omissions of National Guard personnel during Federal training activities, the court held, precluded derivative liability on the part of Hawaii, because, as a National Guardsman, the driver was also, according to the court, under the control of the State. The case presented a host of issues not at all germane here but, for our purposes, it essentially turned on the fact that, under the Hawaii tort claims act in effect at the time of the accident, Hawaii had apparently waived sovereign immunity for negligent acts of National Guard personnel occurring during Federal training exercises. [4] That is not the case with MTCA. Nor, we might add, is it any longer the case in Hawaii. The Washington case is distinguishable for the same reasons. The plaintiffs were Army personnel who were killed or injured when, during a training exercise, an artillery unit of the Washington National Guard negligently fired a shell in their direction. The Washington tort claims act made the State liable for damages arising out of its tortious conduct to the same extent as if it were a private person or corporation. Emsley, 722 P.2d at 1302. Unlike MTCA, it apparently did not attempt to define or limit the types of agents whose conduct would produce vicarious liability. See also Kentucky National Guard v. Bayles, 535 S.W.2d 234 (Ky.1976) and Speer v. State, 27 Ill. Ct. Cl. 188, 1971 WL 14977 (1971). There are both Federal and State laws dealing with MANG. The Federal laws are scattered among Title 32 of the U.S.Code, dealing with the National Guard, Title 10, dealing with the Armed Forces, and Title 37, dealing with pay and allowances for the uniformed services. The State law is contained principally in Article 65 of the Maryland Code, dealing with the militia. Title 32 U.S.C. § 502 requires that, under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Army (or Air Force), each company, battery, squadron, and detachment of the National Guard (1) assemble for drill and instruction at least 48 times each year, and (2) participate in training at encampments, maneuvers, outdoor target practice, or other exercises, at least 15 days each year. Those requirements are also imposed by State law. See Article 65, § 27. Under Federal law, the 48 weekend drills are classified as inactive duty training (Title 10, § 101(d)(7)(A) and Title 37, § 206(a)(1)), for which the members of the National Guard are paid, by the Federal Government, at the rate of 1/30 of the basic pay authorized for a member of a uniformed service of a corresponding grade entitled to basic pay. § 206(a). The mandatory 15 days of field training is classified as active duty training (Title 10, § 101(d)(1)), for which the members of the National Guard are paid, by the Federal Government, at the same rate applicable to their counterparts in the uniformed service who are on active duty (Title 37, § 204(a)(2)). In both instances, they are compensated entirely by the Federal Government. That is manifest not only by the Federal statutes but also by State law. Section 8 of Article 65 authorizes the Governor to order any part of the militia into active service (1) in times of public crisis, disaster, rioting, catastrophe, insurrection, invasion, tumult, or breach of the peace, (2) upon reasonable apprehension thereof, or (3) to enforce the laws of the State. Section 8 makes clear, however, that active State service or active duty, as referred to in that section, shall not include drill periods or preparation therefor or equivalent training, or annual field training of the militia while in its capacity as National Guard of the United States, unless the Governor shall provide specifically to the contrary. State compensation for military service is provided for in § 32 of Article 65. That section applies only when the organized militia is ordered out for active duty or training by the Governor, or by his authority. The evidence presented in connection with the State's motion is fully consistent with these statutory provisions. Before the court were (1) Permanent Orders 91-23 and 91-29 of the Adjutant General, under the authority of Title 32 U.S.C. § 503, ordering the units to Camp Blanding for 15 days of training from June 7 21, 1997, (2) MANG records, under affidavit of Colonel Walter Mueller, United States Property and Fiscal Officer for MANG, showing that Headly and Singh received Federal pay for the 15 days of training, and (3) an affidavit of Edwin Greenberg, Director of the State Central Payroll Bureau, attesting that (i) members of MANG are paid from Central Payroll Bureau as State employees when called into active service by the Governor pursuant to Article 65, § 8, (ii) they are not paid from Central Payroll Bureau when called into active service under orders of the United States Government, and (iii) no members of MANG, including Headly and Singh, were called into active service of the State by the Governor or paid from Central Payroll Bureau as State employees during the month of June, 1997. No evidence contrary to those documents or raising any dispute of fact stated in those documents was presented. Petitioners assert, however, that, because, as members of MANG, Headly and Singh may sometimes be paid through Central Payroll Bureauwhen they are called into active service by the Governor under § 8 of Article 65it is possible that they may be paid in part by that unit and, for that reason, qualify as State personnel. That is not the correct approach. For one thing, there is no evidence in this record that either Headly or Singh has ever been called into State service by the Governor and has, therefore, ever been paid through Central Payroll Bureau. More important, their status as State personnel must be determined based on whether, at the time of the incident, they were being paid in whole or in part through Central Payroll Bureau. The part payment language was simply to cover persons who are, at the time of the incident giving rise to the claim, State officials or employees but who are being paid from more than one source. That circumstance is not uncommon. To view part payment in a linear context, as petitioners do, would make someone who, on a contract basis, works at scattered times for a State agency, State personnel even when he or she is not working for the State. A part-time instructor at a State school or a person who does seasonal work for a State agency would be regarded as State personnel even when working full-time for someone else. On the record before us, it is clear that, at the time of the accident, Headly and Singh were not being paid in whole or in part by the Central Payroll Bureau. Finally, petitioners attempt to classify Headly and Singh as State personnel under § 12-101(a)(4), on the theory that they were, without compensation, exercising a part of the sovereignty of the State. That, too, is unavailing. Without regard to whether they were serving without compensation, Headly and Singh clearly were not exercising any part of the sovereignty of the State of Maryland while scrimmaging in the State of Florida as part of Federal active-duty annual field training. Accordingly, they were not State personnel, and, as a result, MTCA is not applicable. In light of this conclusion, it is not necessary for us to address the other defenses raised by the State with respect to this aspect of petitioners' claim.