Johnson v. Unsatisfied Claim & Judgment Fund Board

Singley, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. As is the case in most instances where remedial legislation has been, enacted, Maryland’s Unsatisfied Claim and Judgment Fund Law, Code (1957, 1970 Repl. Vol.) Art. 66(4, subtitle 7, part VI (the Act) has given rise to a spate of litigation dealing with the question whether the requirements of § 7-620 of the Act, “ ‘Hit-and-run’ cases generally” have been met, Weber v. Unsatisfied Claim & Judgment Fund Board, 261 Md. 457 , 276 A. 2d 86 (1971) ; Jones v. Unsatisfied Claim & Judgment Fund Board, 261 Md. 62 , 273 A. 2d 418 (1971) ; Grady v. Unsatisfied Claim & Judgment Fund Board, 259 Md. 501 , 270 A. 2d 482 (1970); Hickman v. Unsatisfied Claim & Judgment Fund Board, 255 Md. 267 , 257 A. 2d 426 (1969). While these controversies have been disposed of-on a case-by-case basis, the semblance of a rule has commenced to emerge.

Among the conditions which must be met in order for a person injured by an unidentified motor vehicle and operator to obtain an order of a court of competent jurisdiction permitting him to bring an action against the Unsatisfied Claim and Judgment Fund Board is that imposed by § 7-620 (5) which requires that the court be satisfied that “All reasonable efforts have been made to ascertain the identity of the motor vehicle and of the owner and operator thereof and either that the identity of the motor vehicle and the owner and operator thereof cannot be estab ⁹² lished, or that the identity of the operator, who was operating the motor vehicle without the owner’s consent, cannot be established.” We recognized the reason for the conditions imposed by the Act in Rosenberg v. Manager of Unsatisfied Claim & Judgment Fund Board, 260 Md. 164 , 271 A. 2d 692 (1970): “Although we have on a number of occasions recognized that the Unsatisfied Claim and Judgment Fund law is remedial legislation which should be construed liberally in order to effectuate its beneficial purpose, we have also made it abundantly clear that this constitutes no basis for failure to comply with the express terms and conditions of the act designed by the legislature for the protection of the fund against fraud and abuse.” 260 Md. at 168. In the case before us, the appellants, Johnson and Cain, were passengers in a bus owned by B and A Charter Bus Service, which was northbound on Maryland Route 3, a divided highway, in the early morning of 18 May 1969. The bus was struck by a car which was headed south in the northbound lane of Route 3. The bus had swerved to the left onto the grass median strip, but despite this evasive action, was struck on the right side by the southbound car, which left the scene before anyone could obtain the license number, although there was a suggestion that it was pursued by an unidentified motorist.

Within nine minutes, Officer Dodge, of the Anne Arundel County Police Department, arrived at the scene; interviewed the bus driver and some of the passengers; obtained a description of the car which had collided with the bus, and had broadcast an “all points” alert on the police radio. The