Retain contributory negligence rule: Defeat efforts to legislate comparative negligence

In many of the past several years’ sessions of the General Assembly, trial lawyers have introduced bills designed to replace Maryland’s current system of determining a defendant’s liability with a system that makes recovery against a defendant easier – even when the person bringing the lawsuit substantially contributed to his own injuries. At present, the Maryland courts allow a person sued for negligence or wrongdoing to raise the “contributory negligence” defense, that is, the party sued may claim that the plaintiff contributed to his injury and thus should not be allowed to recover from the defendant. This long-standing rule in Maryland courts prevents a person from shifting his or her responsibility to others.

If an injured party acts, or fails to act, with knowledge and appreciation that such conduct could result in harm and that party then is injured, he or she cannot recover against another for that injury. The defendant bears the burden of proving that the injured party’s conduct contributed to the harm, and this is generally considered by the jury. Because Maryland’s doctrine of contributory negligence allows a jury to take into consideration how an injured party’s conduct contributed to that party’s injury, it permits juries to more fairly evaluate what damages, if any, should be awarded to an injured party who may have contributed to his own injury. This, in turn, results in lower litigation awards and costs.

The contributory negligence standard should be maintained in Maryland and MACPA will work to defeat any change because:

the contributory negligence standard prevents a flood of suits by plaintiffs who have a disproportionate amount of fault;
the contributory negligence standard will keep the lid on insurance premium growth rates;
the contributory negligence standard fosters the exercise of due care by all persons;
the contributory negligence standard, as a long respected doctrine, enhances the predictability of litigation, including its costs;
the comparative negligence rule as outlined in prior bills would lead to higher premiums for automobile and homeowners' insurance;
prior bills' comparative negligence rule would lead to higher premiums for businesses' general liability and product liability insurance; and
prior bills' comparative negligence rule would lead to higher premiums for professional liability and errors and omissions insurance.

The increased cost of conducting business and the decreased productivity associated with the comparative negligence standard would, in the long run, lead to a loss of jobs, increased liability and a deterioration of the economic climate in Maryland. MACPA will again work to retain the contributory negligence rule.