Opinion ID: 1902359
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Delaware's Public Policy Prohibits Comity For Maryland

Text: The Delaware Long-Arm Statute provides that a court may exercise personal jurisdiction over any nonresident ... who in person or through an agent ... [c]auses tortious injury in the State by an act or omission in this State .... [61] In addition to this general long-arm provision, Delaware law provides: Any nonresident owner, operator or driver of any motor vehicle, who accepts the privilege extended by law to nonresidents of this State to operate or drive such motor vehicles on the public streets, roads, turnpikes or highways of this State by operating or driving such motor vehicle or by having the same operated or driven ... shall be such acceptance of the privilege be deemed thereby to have appointed and constituted the Secretary of State of this State, his agent for the acceptance of legal process in any civil action against such nonresident owner, operator or driver arising or growing out of any accident or collision occurring within this State in which such motor vehicle is involved .... [62] This Court has explained the fundamental purpose behind the statute: [The purpose] is to afford a means of civil redress to persons injured in Delaware as a result of motor vehicle accidents in which one of the vehicles involved is owned by a non-resident of the state. In view of this fundamental purpose, it seems reasonable that the statute be construed, unless the statutory provisions prohibit such a construction, so as to make the remedy available to all persons injured as the result of the negligent operation of a non-Delaware car, which has been driven into Delaware over Delaware highways .... [63] Thus, by the mere fact of accepting the privilege of driving a vehicle over Delaware highways, a non-resident thereby agrees to be sued for damages caused by the operation of his vehicle in Delaware. [64] In construing an earlier Massachusetts statute to the same effect, the United States Supreme Court stated: Motor vehicles are dangerous machines; and, even when skillfully and carefully operated, their use is attended by serious dangers to persons and property. In the public interest the state may make and enforce regulations reasonably calculated to promote care on the part of all, residents and nonresident alike, who use its highways. The [Massachusetts long-arm statute] operates to require a nonresident to answer for his conduct in the state where arise causes of action alleged against him, as well as to provide for a claimant a convenient method by which he may sue to enforce his rights .... The state's power to regulate the use of its highways extends to their use by nonresidents as well as by residents. [65] Accordingly, this Court has recognized that Section 3112 was intended to avoid the necessity of following a tortfeasor to his [or her] place of domicile in order to obtain redress for his [or her] tort. [66] The provision in the Maryland Tort Claims Act that requires a lawsuit to be filed in a Maryland judicial forum is inconsistent with the public policy of the Delaware Long Arm Statute. Under Delaware's Tort Claims Act, sovereign immunity is waived by the State of Delaware up to the amount of liability insurance procured by the Insurance Coverage Determination Committee to cover certain loss risks. [67] The Act commands the Committee to [p]rotect the public from wrongful actions of State officials and employees.... [68] This body has set the policy limits for the negligence of state police officers at $750,000/1,000,000. This Court has previously concluded that, given the comprehensive nature of the insurance plan, its mandatory language, and the injustice it would correct (by partially abrogating the doctrine of sovereign immunity), the General Assembly intended to enact a viable [insurance] program which would ... `[p]rotect the public from wrongful actions of State officials and employees.' [69] If this Court held that the State of Maryland's maximum liability in this case was $50,000, it would result in granting greater sovereign immunity to our sister state than the General Assembly has retained for the State of Delaware. [70] The limitations of liability in the Maryland Tort Claims Act are inconsistent with the limitations on liability in the Delaware Tort Claims Act. The Delaware Long-Arm Statute and the Delaware Tort Claims Act both reflect a coherent and comprehensive public policy which prohibits a Delaware Court from recognizing, as a matter of comity, either the absolute or the limited sovereign immunity arguments that have been asserted by Knapp and the State of Maryland. Therefore, we have concluded that the public policy underlying the Delaware Long-Arm Statute and the Delaware Tort Claims Act favors permitting Shepherd and Cline to recover the full amount of monetary damages awarded to each of them. The Superior Court should have entered judgments in favor of Shepherd and Cline in accordance with the damage awards recommended by the arbitrator.