Hickman v. Unsatisfied Claim & Judgment Fund Board

Hammond, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court. Warner Hickman was seriously injured when, according to the investigating officer, as he was driving north on Route 170 in Anne Arundel County at an apparently high rate of speed on a rainy night, after having imbibed alcohol, his car was unable to stay in its lane around a long sweeping curve, crossed into the southbound lane, came back into the northbound lane and ran off the road into a gully and up an embankment into a tree. Hickman gave timely notice of his intention to sue the Unsatisfied Claim and Judgment Fund Board. He followed this by a petition under Code (1967 Repl.

Vol.), Art. 66V2, § 167, which alleged that an automobile going south on Route 170 crossed over into the northbound lane, causing Hickman to cut to his left and run off the road, and prayed an order, allowing him to sue the Board. The Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County refused the relief he sought because he had not made, as § 167 requires as a prerequisite to the right to sue the Fund Board, “[a] 11 reasonable efforts * * * to ascertain the identity of the [phantom] motor vehicle and of the owner and operator thereof * * Judge Melvin said: “In this case there was no evidence presented to the court of any efforts made by the applicant or anyone on his behalf at any time to ascertain either the ‘identity of the motor vehicle or the owner and operator thereof.’ In fact, at the hearing before the court the petitioner seems to have proceeded as if the statutory requirement ²⁶⁹ of making ‘all reasonable efforts’ did not exist. In his testimony, he was not even asked, what, if any, efforts he or anyone else made, or, if efforts were not made, why not. “In argument his counsel concedes that no effort was made by the petitioner, and there is no evidence that anyone else made an effort. The court is, nevertheless, asked to assume from the circumstances that it would have been useless to do so and that therefore it is not necessary to show that any effort was made.

The court is unwilling to make such an assumption. “It seems to the court that as a minimum the petitioner should have informed the police officer at some time of the circumstances of the accident. With the investigative resources available to the police,