Maryland’s Comparative Negligence Rule
The state of Maryland employs a comparative negligence rule when it comes to collision-related legal cases. In basic terms, Maryland’s comparative negligence rule stipulates that when both parties involved in a collision are responsible for the accident, then damages can still be recovered by both parties. In other words, it is possible for you to collect some amount of compensation, even if you were partially at fault in the incident. Maryland’s comparative negligence rule boils down to the fact that each party involved has a degree of responsibility in the accident, and that those responsible for the accident should reasonably be held responsible for the damages.
Under the comparative negligence rule, each party’s respective negligence is evaluated to determine what percentage of fault they have. Generally, the party with the greatest percentage of negligence may not be able to recover anything from the other party. Depending on the degree of fault of each party, courts in Maryland may consider the relative fault of each party when determining how much each party is owed in damages.
For instance, if one party is 90% responsible for the accident, and the other party is deemed to be 10% responsible for the accident, then the 90% responsible party does not have a legal cause of action for damages that may arise from the accident. It is possible, however, for the less negligent party to receive compensation from the other party for some of the damages that were caused. The amount of damages owed will depend upon the degree of fault assessed to each party. As an example, if the 90% responsible party is deemed to be at fault for $10,000 in damages, then the 10% responsible party with lesser culpability would be responsible for paying $1,000 in damages to the other party.
It should be noted that under the comparative negligence rule, a party may still collect damages even if they are found to be at least 50% responsible for the accident. In such cases, the party’s claim for damages will be reduced by the portion of fault attributed to them. For instance, if a person is found to be 50% responsible for the accident, then their claim for damages will only be eligible for half of the actual damages caused.
One of the most important aspects of the comparative negligence rule is that it allows parties to recover “economic damages” and “non-economic damages” incurred as a result of the accident. Economic damages are those that are quantifiable, such as the cost of property damages, medical bills, lost wages, etc. Non-economic damages, on the other hand, can include things like mental anguish, pain, and suffering. In instances where both economic and non-economic damages are present, the comparative negligence rule can be used to determine what proportion of each type of damage is recoverable. For example, if a person is found to be 75% responsible for the accident, then they may only be eligible for 25% of the claimed non-economic damages. On the other hand, if the same person was deemed to only be 25% responsible for the accident, then they would be eligible for the full amount of their non-economic damages.
Ultimately, it is important to remember that the purpose of Maryland’s comparative negligence rule is to ensure that all parties are held responsible for their role (regardless of how large or small) in the accident. Furthermore, the rule serves to prevent one party from using the negligence of another party as a means of completely denying liability for the accident and its associated economic and non-economic damages.
