Change in tort law would add to the load of clogged courts

As highlighted in recent articles in The Sun, Baltimore courts have an overcrowding crisis that led to the dismissals of several serious criminal cases. I commend Gov. Parris N. Glendening and the other public officials who are working to add courtrooms, prosecutors and public offenders.

Now is not the time to pass bills that would increase the burden on Baltimore's Circuit Court. But a bill in the House that would adopt "comparative fault," a legal liability system to replace Maryland's "contributory negligence" rule -- which has been in effect for more than 150 years -- would do just that.

Whatever one thinks of the merits of this proposal (and it is opposed by State Treasurer Richard N. Dixon, the city of Baltimore, all local governments and many businesses), now is certainly not the time to make a change that could only add to the court's overcrowding problem.

According to the Administrative Office of the Courts and the Department of Fiscal Services, passage of comparative fault would "increase the workload of the circuit courts due to more tort case filings." The contributory negligence system minimizes the filing of lawsuits and encourages settlement of claims before trial because plaintiffs cannot recover if their conduct contributed to their injury.

Under comparative fault, more lawsuits are filed because even plaintiffs who are partially at fault can sue to recover a portion of their damages. Thus, by adding to the workload of the civil docket, a comparative fault system would divert resources from dealing with the city's criminal docket crisis.

We need to lessen the burdens on our court system, not increase them.

George L. Russell Jr., Baltimore

The writer is a partner at the law firm Piper & Marbury and a former Baltimore Circuit judge.

List of mayoral candidates puts a scare into status quo

Certain state legislators have characterized as "frightening" the crop of candidates for mayor of Baltimore, as if the incompetence, dishonesty, corruption, indifference and arrogance of the political status quo is not frightening enough.

The intolerably high rates of poverty, homelessness, drug addiction, murders, muggings, home and car break-ins, HIV, venereal disease, school failures, beggars, auto insurance rates and filthy streets are too frightening to behold.

We had better start to behold something that is radically frightening to the local power structure and its bought-and-paid-for politicians because all this deterioration has occurred under their watch.

Under these circumstances, I'll stake my claim as the most frightening candidate of them all.

A. Robert Kaufman, Baltimore

The writer is a Democratic candidate for mayor of Baltimore.

News that moves -- or makes you move

Big business is forcing farmers to foreclose on their farms, and the government stands by and does nothing ("The new pecking order," Feb. 28 to March 2). A man kills someone and gets away with it ("Family sees a killer, not a success story," March 2).

Makes me want to move to Australia.

Darlene Koermer, Edgewood

Final credits roll for Greenspring Cinemas

Feb. 28 was the last operating day for the Greenspring Cinemas 3 on Smith Avenue. I would like to thank everyone involved in its operations over 14 years.

Neil Shifren, Baltimore

Don't let sports coverage bury Zinman and Wigler

On March 2, I picked up the Today section of The Sun to find two sports stories on its front page. This has happened before, and the result is that arts-related stories get pushed out of the limelight.

I realize that sports are very popular in our culture, but don't we already have an entire section of the paper devoted to them? That same day, a story about David Zinman, who spent 13 years in town as music director of the Baltimore Symphony Orchestra and is an internationally renowned conductor, was relegated to the back page of the Today section.

This is an insult not only to Maestro Zinman, but also to Stephen Wigler, whose writing deserves better.

If you're going to treat them this way, why cover the arts and entertainment at all?

Dyana Neal, Baltimore

Electric deregulation has many opponents

Your article on the Maryland legislature's hearing on electric deregulation ("Electric competition is pushed," Feb. 26) understated the level of opposition to and concern with the approach to electric utility deregulation contained in the bills the legislature's leadership is backing.

Representatives of more than 30 organizations voiced concerns about the leadership bills or opposed them altogether, favoring instead a restructuring bill introduced by Sen. Brian Frosh and Del. Leon Billings, both of Montgomery County.

Among that group were representatives of civic organizations such as the American Association of Retired Persons, Baltimore Urban League and the Maryland League of Women Voters and environmental advocacy groups like the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Sierra Club and Natural Resources Defense Council.

Advocates for the poor, including Maryland Alliance for the Poor, Fuel Fund of Central Maryland, Center for Poverty Solutions and Welfare Advocates, and religious organizations, including St. Vincent DePaul Society, Maryland Catholic Conference, Maryland Jewish Alliances and the Maryland Interfaith Legislative Committee, also backed the Frosh-Billings approach, as did consumer advocates such as the Maryland Public Interest Research Group, Public Citizen and a representative of the Consumer Protection Division of the Maryland Office of the Attorney General.

The Maryland Municipal League also supported important provisions in the Frosh-Billings bills which are absent from the leadership's bills. In my capacity as the public advocate for residential utility consumers, I also testified in favor of the Frosh/Billings approach and against legislation sponsored by Senate President Thomas V. Mike Miller Jr. and Speaker of the House Casper R. Taylor Jr.

These groups with concerns about the environment, the poor and the average household hope to work with the leadership of the General Assembly, the utilities and the large industrial customers to meld the different approaches in these bills in a way that accommodates the interests of all parties.

Michael J. Travieso, Baltimore

The writer is the Maryland people's counsel.

"Electricity competition is pushed" (Feb. 26) clarified some of the problems with moving hastily toward deregulation: Maryland is a relatively low-cost state in terms of electric rates and stands to gain little through deregulation. The state legislature and Marylanders are still learning about this complex issue. And it has yet to be demonstrated that residential consumers or the environment will benefit from deregulation.

While the utilities and big businesses are pushing deregulation because they stand to gain, will it really help residential consumers? Or will the average person, especially low-income and rural Marylanders, see higher rates?

With this key question unanswered, legislators should not be rushing deregulation. One of the key provisions aimed at benefiting residential consumers in the Frosh-Billings legislation is sorely lacking in the bill by Senate President Thomas V. Mike Miller and House Speaker Casper R. Taylor Jr.: community choice or the right of municipalities, counties and others to group buyers effectively to get fair rates. Why does the leadership bill prevent this?

Legislators should deregulate the electric utilities if it will benefit average Marylanders, and I cannot see how that will happen with the big business-backed Miller-Taylor bill. Why should relatively low-cost Maryland rush deregulation?

Korey Hartwich, Washington

The writer is an organizer and legislative associate at Public Citizen's critical mass energy project.

Pub Date: 3/12/99