Civil Immunity Fact Center

REAL STORIES OF SUED VICTIMS

Milwaukee Man Sued for Protecting His Home (pdf) | New York Woman Sued for Shooting her Mugger (pdf)

Update 2-5-2010

What is Civil Immunity?

Civil Immunity is the concept of being protected from liability in a civil court.

Does Maryland have this?

No. While Maryland has protection against criminal prosecution for self defense (justifiable homicide) it does not have protection against civil lawsuits.

Do Other States have this?

Yes, many states have this law. They have not seen a rash of home owners committing joy killings. 

What does this have to do with Brian Frosh?

A lot. Brian Frosh in his role as chairman of the judiciary refuses to allow his committee to vote on SB 386 and SB 411 which would give Maryland a Castle Doctrine.

Brian Frosh's Argument Rebuttal Argument
   
Homeowners are immune unless they act with "gross negligence or malice." This is simply not true. A criminal can file suit against a homeowner/occupant regardless of how the homeowner/occupant defended themselves. Even the criminal's family can file suit should the criminal lose his life in the ordeal. The homeowner/occupant is at a substantial financial loss if he/she is forced to settle out of court, or if he/she is forced to hire counsel to defend themselves from ridiculous charges. Even if the defendant would win the case, monies spent on court costs could destroy a defendant. This bill seeks to stop these suits before they can even be filed. A grant of immunity prevents a lawsuit from being heard.
   
"It's like they want the right to act unreasonably,"

This is nothing more than a red hearing, designed to make home owners who do not bend over and let the burglars win seem like bad guys. What people want the right to do is be able to defend their homes and their families without fear of criminals taking them for everything they own. Also, Provision C of this bill states:

"THIS SECTION DOES NOT APPLY TO A PERSON WHO ACTS WITH MALICE OR GROSS NEGLIGENCE."

The truth is that the bill protects criminals against unreasonable force being used.

   
His office has been bombarded with e-mails and phone calls from people accusing him of placing a hold on the bill, even though Frosh said he has not.  This is technically true. A hold cannot be placed by a committee chairman. What Mr. Frosh is doing is known as pigeon holing or desk drawer vetoing. He refuses to schedule the bill for a vote.
   
Just because the bill received overwhelming support in the House of Delegates does not mean it is good legislation, he said

Didn't we fight a war with England in about 1776 over the ability of one man to rule a nation? The bill hasn't just received overwhelming support, it's received unanimous support. The bill is bad in one man's opinion, and that is his right and he is entitled to vote against it. What he's not entitled to do is circumvent the will of the people.

It is an issue that few people want to challenge because they know if they do they'll get calls and e-mails from pro-gun groups. Few people? Every single Delegate, from both parties, representing MILLIONS of Marylanders, has voted for this bill. Further, what is the problem with receiving calls and e-mails on an issue? Our politicians are elected to represent us and our will, not to force their own agendas and biases upon us. This is not a firearms issue at all, this relates to self-defense in one's own home, regardless of the instrument used in that pursuit. This law applies just as much to the use of non-lethal weapons as it does lethal weapons.
   
"Under current law, you may use reasonable force to repel a home invader without the risk of civil liability."

Actually, the law is more silent on this. The law is clear that you may use reasonable force to repel a home invader without risk of criminal liability, but the law is silent on civil liability.

   
"SB 420 would allow you to use violence against an intruder who breaks into your home with the intent to commit a burglary or crime of violence. The bill would deny you protection if you acted with malice or gross negligence. These terms – intent, malice, and gross negligence – would give rise to disputes that will fuel civil suits." Does Mr. Frosh really believe that people who act with malice or gross negligence deserve protection? I can tell you that no one I know believes that. People who abuse the power of self defense are no better than criminals. The only people who desire to protect criminals, are criminals and those who profit off criminals
   
"SB 420 would repeal the longstanding rule that you may act reasonably in defense of your home. Protecting unreasonable actions is, perhaps by definition, dangerous public policy. The bill invites violent responses, to no obvious good end"

Wait? Didn't he just say that the bill would protect unreasonable actions? It seems that Mr. Frosh is contradicting himself. SB 386 and SB 411 RE-ENFORCES and EXPANDS the longstanding rule that you may defend your home reasonably. It specifically provides protection against violent actions as Mr. Frosh himself says, then contradicts himself.

   
Again, SB 386 and SB 411provides Civil Immunity, in addition to Criminal Immunity, to those who defend their homes with reasonable lawful force! It does not encourage unreasonable violence, in fact it denies protection to those who act with malice and gross negligence.
   
More of Brian Frosh's Spin More Rebuttals
   
"At the public hearing on SB 420, I asked witnesses for examples of successful lawsuits against people who exercised their right to protect themselves and their families in their home. No one could identify a case, in Maryland or elsewhere, and no one has identified a case since the hearing"

A lawsuit doesn't need to be successful to harm someone's life. The attorney's fees, time off from work, emotional stress and other fees associated with having to appear in court can be damage enough. Working at a firm that deals with personal injury and civil litigation, I would think Mr. Frosh would understand first hand how high attorney's fees can be, how serious emotional trauma can be and the general pains of having to go to court. We do have cases of being sued: Milwaukee Man Sued for Protecting His Home (pdf) | New York Woman Sued for Shooting her Mugger (pdf)
   
"Rather than debating the merits of their idea, they are telling anyone who will listen that I am trying to “circumvent the will of the entire General Assembly.” Well, um...yeah that's kind of what your doing. If you want to debate the bill, then bring it up to the committee for debate and a vote. Then if it passes, like it passed the House of Delegates unanimously, you can debate it on the Senate floor. If you want to debate it, reach out to us. We aren't all stereotypical gun owners (in fact many of us many not even own guns) and I'm sure many of us would enjoy the chance to discuss these issues.
   
"State law protects your right to use reasonable force to protect yourself and your family in your home. I support that law. I will oppose attempts to undermine it" I'm glad that you support that, but SB 386 and SB 411 really expands it.
   
"As chairman of the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee, I am obligated to make sure the Senate focuses on the most important pieces of legislation – bills that are well-crafted and seek to offer good solutions to problems affecting Marylanders. SB 420 does not meet that test." Yes, that is part of your job. I could be more understanding if this bill didn't have the support of the ENTIRE House of Delegates over MULTIPLE years. It also enjoys popular support in the Senate. If it were a bill that barley passed the House and didn't enjoy much support in the Senate it would be a different story. Remember that another part of your job is to represent the people who elected you and the people of this state. It seems the people of this state want this legislation.