Justia Maryland Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Petitioner was a waterman with a commercial license to harvest clams. As Petitioner was clamming in 2011, a Department of Natural Resources (DNR) police sargeant cited Petitioner for using a hydraulic claim dredge (HCD) in a submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) protection zone in violation of Md. Code Nat. Res. 4-1006.1(e)(3). The district court later convicted Petitioner of violating section 4-1006.1 and imposed a criminal fine and costs. The circuit court, sitting as an appellate court, affirmed. Petitioner filed a petition for a writ of certiorari, contending that he could not be prosecuted for using the HCD in the SAV zone because DNR failed to fulfill its obligation under section 4-1006.1(e)(3) to "publish, by public notice, delineations of SAV protection zones and revisions to SAV protection zones." The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) a violation of section 4-1006.1 is not a strict liability crime, and a prosecution for using an HCD in an SAV zone can only be maintained if the State establishes that DNR complied with section 4-1006.1(e)(3); and (2) in the instant case, the State failed to prove that DNR complied with section 4-1006.1(e)(3), and therefore, Petitioner's conviction could not stand. View "Lowery v. State" on Justia Law

Railroad employee (Employee) filed suit against his employer (Railroad) under the Federal Employers Liability Act (FELA), alleging that Railroad was negligent in its use of large ballast rather than small ballast in areas where Employee worked. Employee claimed that walking on the large ballast caused him to develop osteoarthritis in both knees. A jury found Railroad seventy percent negligent and Employee twenty percent negligent and awarded Employee $1,246,000 for his injuries. The court of special appeals affirmed. At issue before the Supreme Court was whether and when a railroad employee's negligence action under FELA may be precluded by the Federal Railroad Safety Act (FRSA). The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) a negligence action alleging the improper use of ballast will be precluded only to the extent to which the ballast performs a track-support function, and under such circumstances, the railroad should bear the burden of proving the facts that support preclusion; and (2) here, Employee's FELA claim was not precluded by FRSA because Railroad failed to prove that the ballast complained of performed a track-support function. View "CSX Transp., Inc. v. Pitts" on Justia Law