Contributory negligence is a legal concept that comes into play in personal injury cases in Maryland. It is a legal defense that a defendant may use to reduce or even eliminate their liability for the plaintiff’s injuries. In Maryland, the doctrine of contributory negligence is still in use, meaning that if a plaintiff is found to be even 1% at fault for their own injuries, they may not be able to recover any compensation at all.
What is Contributory Negligence?
Contributory negligence is a legal defense that is used in personal injury cases. It means that the plaintiff’s own negligence contributed to their injuries, and therefore, they should not be able to recover any compensation from the defendant. In other words, if the plaintiff was even partially at fault for the accident that caused their injuries, they may not be able to recover any compensation from the defendant.
This doctrine is different from comparative negligence, which is used in many other states. Comparative negligence allows a plaintiff to recover compensation based on their percentage of fault. For example, if a plaintiff is found to be 50% at fault for their own injuries, they may only be able to recover 50% of the damages.
In Maryland, however, the doctrine of contributory negligence is still in use. This means that if a plaintiff is found to be even 1% at fault for their own injuries, they may not be able to recover any compensation at all.
How Contributory Negligence Works in Maryland
In Maryland, if the plaintiff is found to be at all at fault for their own injuries, they are completely barred from recovering any compensation from the defendant. This means that the defendant can completely avoid liability for the plaintiff’s injuries if they can prove that the plaintiff’s own negligence contributed to the accident.
This can be a difficult standard to meet, as the defendant must prove that the plaintiff’s own negligence was the direct cause of the accident. For example, if a plaintiff was injured in a car accident and the defendant claims that the plaintiff was texting while driving and that’s why the accident occurred, the defendant would have to prove that the plaintiff’s texting was the direct cause of the accident.
However, if the defendant can prove that the plaintiff’s own negligence was the direct cause of the accident, the plaintiff may not be able to recover any compensation at all.
Exceptions to Contributory Negligence in Maryland
There are a few exceptions to the doctrine of contributory negligence in Maryland. These exceptions allow a plaintiff to recover compensation even if they were partially at fault for their own injuries.
One exception is the “last clear chance” doctrine. This doctrine applies when the defendant had the last opportunity to avoid the accident, even if the plaintiff was negligent. For example, if a plaintiff runs a red light and is struck by a speeding car, but the defendant had enough time to stop before hitting the plaintiff, the defendant may still be liable for the plaintiff’s injuries.
Another exception is the “intentional wrong” exception. If the defendant intentionally caused the plaintiff’s injuries, the doctrine of contributory negligence does not apply, and the plaintiff can recover compensation.
Lastly, Maryland has a “comparative fault” exception that applies in cases where the plaintiff’s negligence was minor, and the defendant’s negligence was the primary cause of the accident. In these cases, the plaintiff may still be able to recover compensation, even if they were partially at fault.
Why Contributory Negligence is Controversial
The doctrine of contributory negligence is controversial because it can be seen as unfair to plaintiffs. In many cases, a plaintiff may be only partially at fault for their own injuries, but under the doctrine of contributory negligence, they may not be able to recover any compensation at all.
This is in contrast to comparative negligence, which allows a plaintiff to recover compensation based on their percentage of fault. This means that even if the plaintiff was partially at fault for their own injuries, they can still recover some compensation from the defendant.
Critics of the doctrine of contributory negligence argue that it is outdated and unfair, and that it should be replaced with a comparative negligence system. However, supporters of the doctrine argue that it promotes personal responsibility and discourages reckless behavior.
Conclusion
In Maryland, the doctrine of contributory negligence is still in use, meaning that if a plaintiff is found to be even 1 percent negligent, they cannot recover for their injuries.
If you or a loved one have been hurt by someone else’s negligence, call Furman | Honick Law today and speak with a partner for a free case evaluation.