The Rule That Sets Maryland Apart

Most states allow an injured person to recover compensation even when they share some responsibility for what happened, reducing the award by their percentage of fault. Maryland does not follow this approach. Under the doctrine of contributory negligence, reaffirmed by Maryland’s highest court in Coleman v. Soccer Association of Columbia, a plaintiff found even slightly at fault for their own injury is barred from recovering anything at all.

This rule can feel genuinely harsh compared to what most people reasonably expect going in, particularly since the vast majority of states have moved away from it entirely over the past several decades of legal reform. Understanding that Maryland genuinely works this way, rather than assuming a small percentage of fault simply reduces an award, changes how a case needs to be approached from day one.

How the Court Reached This Decision

In Coleman, an injured volunteer coach asked the court to replace contributory negligence with the more forgiving comparative fault system used in most other states. The court acknowledged it had the authority to make that change but declined, holding that a shift of this magnitude was better left to the state legislature. That decision left Maryland as one of only a handful of jurisdictions, along with Virginia, Washington D.C., Alabama, and North Carolina, still applying this strict standard today.

Why This Rule Changes How Insurers Negotiate

Because even minor fault completely eliminates a claim, insurers in Maryland have a strong incentive to argue an injured person contributed to the accident in some way, however small the argument might seem at first glance. A Maryland car accident lawyer handling a claim in this environment treats any suggestion of shared fault as a serious threat to the entire case, not just a factor that might slightly reduce the final number.

What Kinds of Arguments Come Up Most Often

Insurers commonly raise a handful of recurring arguments to suggest an injured driver shares some blame for what happened:

  • Following too closely, even in a case where the other driver made a genuinely sudden stop
  • Traveling slightly above the posted speed limit at the exact time of the crash
  • A delayed reaction time that supposedly could have avoided the collision entirely
  • Minor equipment issues, such as a taillight that was reportedly not functioning properly

Even when these arguments seem like a stretch, the stakes are high enough that they deserve a serious, evidence-based response rather than being dismissed outright as unlikely to succeed.

How to Protect a Claim From This Argument

Strong, contemporaneous evidence is the most effective defense against a contributory negligence argument. Police reports, witness statements gathered close to the incident, and physical evidence like skid marks or vehicle damage patterns can directly counter an insurer’s attempt to shift blame onto the injured party. Evidence gathered weeks after the fact tends to carry far less weight than evidence collected while the scene and circumstances are still fresh in everyone’s memory.

Getting a Strategy Built Around This Reality

Because a single successful argument about shared fault can end a claim entirely, Maryland cases require a different level of preparation from the outset. A Maryland car accident lawyer who regularly handles this kind of dispute will treat evidence preservation as a genuine top priority from the very first conversation with a client.

Working With a Firm That Fully Anticipates This Argument

The Law Firm of Frederick J. Brynn, P.C. has handled car accident claims throughout Maryland and understands how to build a case that anticipates and directly addresses contributory negligence arguments before an insurer has the chance to raise them. If you were hurt in a crash, getting ahead of this issue early is one of the most important things you can do for your claim.