Back To The Basics: Contributory Negligence & Maryland Car Accidents

Back to the Basics: Maryland Contributory Negligence & Car Accidents

Car accidents are one of the most common ways that Maryland residents may suffer a preventable personal injury. The most dangerous time for community members each day is usually when they are traveling to and from work. Accidents can strike anywhere, from busy city intersections to remote two-lane highways.  While some accidents are relatively straight-forward (i.e. someone runs a red light or drifts into another lane), at other times an accident may have many different causes all at once.

Contributory negligence is a legal concept that affects the ability of injured victims to obtain compensation for their injuries. Maryland is a contributory negligence state, which means that even if the car accident victim was 1% liable for the accident, they may not recover injury-related losses. Victims of car accidents must prove that the at-fault party was 100% responsible for the accident to obtain compensation for their losses. Anytime the actions of a plaintiff are found to have contributed to the accident, they’re guilty of contributory negligence, meaning they are not entitled to damages.

For example, one driver may fail to yield the right of way to another car at an intersection, but the second car may be speeding at the time.  What happens when both drivers in an accident share some responsibility?  How does the law account for those situations?

Since Maryland is an at-fault state, a judge or jury can deny a car accident claim if a defendant proves the plaintiff was partially at fault. 

Suppose a pedestrian sustained a broken leg after rushing into a speeding vehicle. In that case, the passenger may be guilty of contributory negligence and barred from receiving compensation for their injuries.

Under the contributory negligence analysis, it wouldn’t matter whether the driver was operating beyond the prescribed speed limit. However, pedestrians rushing onto the road without checking whether the road is clear may be denied the opportunity to obtain compensation.

Maryland Contributory Negligence

In the civil law in Maryland, these instances are guided by “contributory negligence” rules.  Under the principle of contributory negligence, a plaintiff in a civil lawsuit seeking to hold a defendant accountable for an accident cannot recover if the plaintiff’s own negligence contributed in even the slightest way to his or her injuries.  This negligence acts as an absolute bar to recovery.  In other words, if both drivers contribute to an accident, it is unlikely that either will be able to sue the other for damages–even if one party was significantly more liable than the other, which can become even more complex in severe cases such as fatal car accidents and wrongful death claims in Baltimore.

Maryland is quite unique in that it follows this contributory negligence doctrine instead of the far more common and newer “comparative negligence” doctrine.  Only four other jurisdictions in the entire country (including Virginia and DC) follow the older rule. The new comparative negligence rule allows parties to recover for an accident that they contributed to, but reduces any award by the percentage of their own fault.  For example, if both drivers are a fault in an accident, but one driver was 90% responsible and the other was 10% responsible, then the party who was only 10% at fault could still recover.

Many observers believe that the older rule which Maryland follows is outdated and should be replaced by a comparative negligence scheme that better fits with standards of fairness and accountability.  In fact, just this summer, the Maryland Court of Appeals heard a case in which they were asked to reconsider this doctrine.  However, the case, Coleman v. Soccer Association of Columbia, ended with a 5-2 opinion upholding the old doctrine.  In reaching this decision the court did not indicate that the contributory negligence standard was ideal, but instead argued that any change must come from the legislature.  The opinion declared, ““For this court to change the common law and abrogate the contributory negligence defense in negligence actions, in the face of the General Assembly’s repeated refusal to do so, would be totally inconsistent with the court’s long-standing jurisprudence.”

Maryland Contributory Negligence vs. Comparative Negligence

Contributory and comparative negligence are two main principles determining how injured victims recover damages from the at-fault party. Both principles give direction on how injured victims obtain compensation when they share fault with the at-fault party.

Under contributory negligence, the plaintiff doesn’t recover damages if they’re found to be partially at fault for the accident. On the contrary, comparative negligence allows an injured party to obtain compensation even when partially at fault for the injury. 

Under comparative negligence, an injured victim’s settlement value is reduced by the extent of their contribution to fault. For example, if their share of contribution to fault was 30%, they can only recover 70% of their damages.

Why Does Maryland Have Contributory Negligence?

Maryland, along with Alabama, Washington D.C., and North Carolina, is one of the jurisdictions in the United States that continues to use the contributory negligence doctrine instead of comparative negligence.

The Maryland Supreme Court adopted the doctrine of contributory negligence in 1847 in  Irwin v. Sprigg. Maryland has stuck to the outdated rule as other states shifted to a more reasonable model to ward off monetary damages based on relative fault. 

In 2013, the Maryland Supreme Court reconsidered shifting to comparative negligence in Coleman v. Soccer Association of Columbia. In a 5-2 opinion, the court ruled that if Maryland is to leave the contributory negligence rule, the legislature should make the decision.

Examples of Cases Where Contributory Negligence is Not Permitted

If contributory negligence does not apply to your case, you may win against the defendant and obtain compensation for your losses. 

Here are a few instances where contributory negligence laws do not apply:

• Personal injury cases involving minors, particularly for children younger than five years
• Product liability cases
• Personal injury cases where the ‘last clear chance’ rule may apply

Minors

The court ruled against contributory negligence in a case involving Mahan v. State, where a 3-year-old boy was killed while walking down a rural road. The court refused the defendant’s prayer to use contributory negligence to shift blame. 

The case law states that children aged five and below do not have the same capability to understand the dangers of their surroundings as adults.

Manufacturers Hold a Higher Responsibility to Ensure the Safety of Products

Product liability cases involve injuries caused by a defective or hazardous product. They also follow a strict liability tort rule that places more liability on the manufacturer. Since the product is available to the public, the manufacturer has a duty to test it to avoid harming consumers.

Although a manufacturer may use contributory negligence as a defense, they must prove that the plaintiff used the product incorrectly and had prior knowledge of its risk.

‘Last Clear Chance’ Rule

Plaintiffs may use the ‘last chance rule’ as a defense against the contributory negligence rule. The rule states that whoever had the last opportunity to avoid the cause of the injury has a higher negligence degree and holds liability.

If the defendant had the last chance to practice more care and avoid the accident from happening, they may be liable for the losses.

Filing Your Claim on Time

If you’ve sustained an injury in a car accident that was not your fault, you should file a claim as soon as possible. Many insurance providers do not set a specific timeline for filing claims but encourage policyholders to notify them within a reasonable time frame.

You should always check your policy to see if there are prescribed time limits to avoid doubts. If you delay filing a claim, the insurer could deny it because it is difficult to assess the damage and specific harm caused by the collision.

Maryland Car Accident Attorney

Considering the relatively harsh consequences of our state’s contributory negligence law, it is very important to ensure you protect your rights in the aftermath of an accident.  Our legal team at Gordon Feinblatt has significant experience navigating the complexities of accident cases, including when issues of contributory negligence are involved.  If you have questions after an incident or exposure in the workplace contact our Maryland car accident lawyers today at 410-576-4287.