 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Gooslin v. State5/31/2000
n" of injured persons that denies equal protection of the law to those injured by the negligence of State employees when compared to those injured by private individuals. Appellant says that this "classification" is "irrational," and cites Murphy v. Edmonds, supra, a case in which the Court of Appeals employed a "rational basis" test in reviewing the $350,000 cap on non-economic damages in personal injury actions. In so doing, it declined to use "intermediate scrutiny" and "strict scrutiny" tests. Murphy, 325 Md. at 361-62. The Court wrote:
In most instances when a governmental classification is attacked on equal protection grounds, the classification is reviewed under the so-called "rational basis" test. Generally under that test, a court "will not overturn the classification unless the varying treatment of different groups or persons is so unrelated to the achievement of any combination of legitimate purposes that [the court] can only conclude that the [governmental] actions were irrational." Id. at 355 (citing Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452, 470, 111 S.Ct. 2395, 115 L.Ed.2d 410 (1991) (quoting Vance v. Bradley, 440 U.S. 93, 97, 99 S.Ct. 939, 59 L.Ed.2d 171 (1979)); see Pennell v. San Jose, 485 U.S. 1, 108 S.Ct. 849, 99 L.Ed.2d 1 (1988) (a statutory classification reviewed under the rational basis standard enjoys a strong presumption of constitutionality and will be invalidated only if the classification is clearly arbitrary. (Citations omitted.))
Where, however, a statutory classification burdens a "suspect class" or impinges upon a "fundamental right," the classification is subject to strict scrutiny. Murphy, 325 Md. at 356. Such statutes will be upheld under the equal protection guarantees only if it is shown that "`they are suitably tailored to serve a compelling state interest.'" Id. (citing Broadwater v. State, 306 Md. 597, 603, 510 A.2d 583 (1986) (quoting Cleburn v. Cleburn Living Center, 473 U.S. 432, 440, 105 S.Ct. 3249, 87 L.Ed.2d 313 (1985)). The Court of Appeals declined to use the "intermediate scrutiny" or "strict scrutiny" tests in these words:
We reject the plaintiffs' contention that the classification created by ยง11-108 of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article is subject to any level of scrutiny higher than the traditional deferential rational basis test. *
Whatever may be the appropriate mode of equal protection analysis for some other statutory classifications, in our view a legislative cap of $350,000 upon the amount of non-economic damages which can be awarded to a tort plaintiff does not implicate such an important `right' so as to trigger any enhanced scrutiny. Instead, the statute represents the type of economic regulation which has been reviewed under the traditional rational basis test by this Court and by the Supreme Court. Murphy, 325 Md. at 361-62.
Accordingly, the rational basis test is the appropriate standard to be applied in appellant's case, and, having applied it, we find no denial of equal protection in the enactment and use of the limitation.
JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR CECIL COUNTY AFFIRMED.
APPELLANT TO PAY THE COSTS.
Page 1 2 3 Maryland Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|