 |
 |
|
|
|
|
Contributory Negligence Reprinted with permission from Viewpoints, published by Wright, Constable & Skeen, L.L.P.
The case arose out of a motor vehicle accident involving a pedestrian, Sue Ann Absolon. Ms. Absolon attempted to cross Rockville Pike at its intersection with Monroe Street in Montgomery County, Maryland. At that intersection, Rockville Pike is divided by a median strip. As Ms. Absolon stepped off of the curb, she had a “walking person” signal. She safely reached the median. When she stepped off the median, the pedestrian signal had turned to a flashing “red hand.” Ms. Absolon continued to cross the street. As she crossed, a vehicle driven by Paul Dollahite was making a right turn from Monroe Street and onto Rockville Pike. Mr. Dollahite struck Ms. Absolon as she crossed Rockville Pike. Ms. Absolon sued Mr. Dollahite for injuries she sustained as a result of the accident. Mr. Dollahite filed a motion to dismiss the case, arguing that Ms. Absolon was partially responsible for causing her injuries by walking against the pedestrian warning signal, or, in other words, that she was contributorily negligent. If Ms. Absolon was contributorily negligent, then under Maryland law, she could not recover anything from Mr. Dollahite. Specifically, Mr. Dollahite argued that Ms. Absolon violated § 21-203 of the Maryland Transportation Code by walking against the flashing warning signal and that her violation of that statute automatically rendered her contributorily negligent. The trial judge agree, stating that the statute made it mandatory for Ms. Absolon to remain on the median andd not to cross the street against the warning signal. The trial judge further held that because she had violated the statute, Ms. Absolon was contributorily negligent as a matter of law. Ms. Absolon appealed the trial court’s ruling to the Court of Special Appeals, Maryland’s intermediate court, which affirmed the trial court’s ruling. However, the Court of Appeals, which is Maryland’s highest court, disagreed with the courts below. The Court of Appeals analyzed other cases involving violations of statutes. In its opinion, the Court of Appeals cited the Maryland case of Schweitzer v. Brewer, which also involved a pedestrian who crossed against a flashing warning signal and was struck by a motor vehicle. In Schweitzer, the Court of Appeals held that, although the pedestrian may have violated the statute, the issue of whether this barred the pedestrian from recovery was a question for the jury. It was thus well-settled in Maryland that the violation of a statute does not automatically mean that the violator is negligent. Applying that principle to Ms. Absolon’s case, the Court of Appeals stated that while Ms. Absolon may have violated the statute, the trial judge should not have determined that she was contributorily negligent. Rather, the trial judge should have let the jury decide whether or not Ms. Absolon, by crossing the street against the flashing warning signal, was contributorily negligent. The case was sent back to the trial court for further proceedings. The Court of Appeal’s ruling in the Absolon case is important for personal injury cases involving statutory violations. While the Court’s holding may seem to favor plaintiffs, its opinion reiterates well-settled principles of Maryland law regarding such violation. The decision follows legal precedent that an individual who violates a statute is not presumed to be negligent, but rather, is entitled to have the negligence issue submitted to a jury. This legal principle is to be applied equally to plaintiffs and defendants, to ensure that all facts and circumstances are taken into account when resolving negligence issues.
|
In
Maryland, contributory negligence is a bar to recovering damages.
On August 27, 2003, the Court of Appeals of Maryland held in
Absolon v. Dollahite, that the violation of a statute does
not automatically result in a finding of contributory negligence.
|
|
|
|
 |
© 1998-2007 Legal Mutual Liability Insurance Society of Maryland. All Rights Reserved. |
|