Opinion ID: 1902359
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Maryland Tort Claims Act Full Faith and Credit Clause Inapplicable

Text: In this case, the State of Maryland admits that it is vicariously liable for the negligent conduct of Knapp while driving within the State of Delaware. The State of Maryland also acknowledges that Knapp's negligence was the proximate cause of the injuries to Cline and to Shepherd. Nevertheless, Maryland and Knapp both contend that they have absolute sovereign immunity from paying any monetary damages to either Shepherd or Cline. The State of Maryland and Knapp argue that the judgments entered against them by the Superior Court should be reversed because the applicable Maryland statute waives the sovereign immunity of the State of Maryland and its units in a tort action only in the courts of the State of Maryland. Thus, the Full Faith and Credit Clause requires that Delaware apply the statutory law of Maryland. [23] That argument is premised upon the Maryland Torts Claim Act. The condition precedent to the limited waiver of sovereign immunity in that Act is a requirement that the lawsuit be filed within a Maryland forum. [24] The Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution provides that: Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof. [25] In this appeal, the State of Maryland asserts that the State of Delaware must give Full Faith and Credit to the Maryland Torts Claims Act. In construing the Full Faith and Credit Clause earlier this year, however, the United States Supreme Court reiterated that it has always ... differentiat[ed] the credit owed to laws (legislative measures and common law) and to judgments. [26] With respect to statutory laws, like the Maryland Tort Claims Act, the forum state is not required to give Full Faith and Credit to the statutes of another state when contemplating an issue upon which the forum state is competent to legislate. [27] Although not cited to this Court, this exact understanding of the Full Faith and Credit Clause was set forth in an Opinion of the Attorney General of the State of Maryland that was released only a few months before the present appeal was filed. [28] That Opinion of the Attorney General of Maryland was issued to the Sheriff of Montgomery County in direct response to the question of liability to third parties for conduct outside the State of Maryland, i.e., interstate transportation of prisoners. The Attorney General of Maryland advised the Sheriff of Montgomery County as follows: If the lawsuit is brought in another state, the sheriff or deputy could not assert [Maryland Tort Claims Act] immunity directly,... because Maryland law cannot directly govern a suit in another state. However, if the court of the forum state, i.e., the court where the lawsuit is brought, chooses to apply the immunity provisions of the [Maryland Tort Claims Act] under conflict of laws or comity principles, the sheriff or deputy would be immune. [29] Although the State of Maryland has been represented by a distinguished Delaware attorney in this appeal, the State of Maryland has also been represented by more than one Assistant Attorney General from the Maryland Office of the Attorney General, who have undoubtedly been advising their Delaware counsel about Maryland law. In view of the prior, published Maryland Attorney General Opinion that was issued to the Sheriff of Montgomery County, it is surprising that the State of Maryland would assert Maryland Tort Claims Act immunity directly to this Court. That argument is especially surprising because one of the Maryland Assistant Attorneys General who appears on the briefs filed in this Court also appeared on the Attorney General Opinion that was issued to the Sheriff of Montgomery County. Nevertheless, in 1998, the United States Supreme Court again explained that the mandate of the Full Faith and Credit Clause requires states to enforce each other's judgments but not each other's statutes. [30] In doing so, it relied upon its 1979 holding in Nevada v. Hall , [31] which addressed the very issue presented in this appeal. That case arose out of an automobile accident, within the State of California, between a vehicle occupied by California residents and another vehicle being operated by an employee of The University of Nevada. [32] For almost two hundred years, it had been assumed that the United States Constitution implicitly prohibited one state from being sued in the courts of another state  just as the Eleventh Amendment explicitly prohibited states from being sued in federal courts. That implicit assumption was based on the theory that interstate immunity was an attribute of state sovereignty that had been reserved to the states in the United States Constitution. [33] In 1979, when it decided Hall, the United States Supreme Court held that assumption was unwarranted. [34] In Hall, a Nevada motorist collided with a California resident within the State of California while engaged in official state business and operating a vehicle owned by the State of Nevada. [35] In its defense, Nevada asserted sovereign immunity and also relied upon the Nevada statutory waiver, limiting an award in a tort action against the State of Nevada to $25,000. Nevertheless, the California Superior Court entered judgment on the full amount of the jury verdict, which had awarded the plaintiffs $1,150,000. [36] The United States Supreme Court acknowledged the validity of California's substantial interest in providing `full protection to those who are injured on its highways through the negligence of both residents and nonresidents.' [37] The Supreme Court made clear that the Full Faith and Credit Clause does not require a State to apply another State's law in violation of its own legitimate public policy. [38] The United States Supreme Court held that the State of California was not required to recognize the State of Nevada's sovereign immunity or its statutory limited waiver cap of $25,000. [39] The judgment of the California Superior Court was not disturbed. [40] In Hall, the United States Supreme Court held that the recognition of interstate sovereign immunity was not constitutionally mandated by the Full Faith and Credit Clause. [41] In 1993, the Maryland Court of Appeals relied upon Hall and held a Maryland court need not recognize the governmental immunity of another state or of a municipal corporation or political subdivision outside of Maryland. [42] In 1998, the United States reaffirmed the holding of Hall, when the issues presented in Baker were decided. [43] The argument that the State of Delaware must give Full Faith and Credit to the Maryland Torts Claim Act is without merit.