Heated debate over carve‑out to contributory negligence for vulnerable road users
Loading...
Summary
Supporters said HB 466 would correct ‘‘archaic’’ outcomes where pedestrians and cyclists are barred from recovery for minor contributory fault; insurers and municipalities warned it would raise premiums and complicate fault allocation.
Delegate Embry and safety advocates pressed the House Judiciary Committee to create a narrow exception to Maryland's contributory negligence doctrine for collisions involving vulnerable road users, arguing the current rule can bar recovery for grievously injured pedestrians and bicyclists when juries find even minor contributory fault.
Attorney and advocates described stories of injured pedestrians and cyclists who were denied compensation under contributory negligence, including a cited case where a 13‑year‑old cyclist was catastrophically injured after a bus driver blew an air horn and the family found recovery impossible under existing law. "This bill will give people a chance to recover when they are not the primary cause of the crash," testified an advocate for cycling safety.
Opponents — including the Maryland Association of Boards of Education, the Maryland Association of Counties, the Maryland Municipal League and major insurers — warned HB 466 would increase litigation, lengthen trials, and raise insurance premiums. Industry witnesses cited Delaware's experience after switching to comparative fault as a precedent for premium increases and noted the state fiscal note predicts material cost effects.
A recurring legal concern was mixing comparative and contributory doctrines in one proceeding: opponents said a single lawsuit could require applying both systems to different parties, creating untenable legal complexity unless broader tort reform accompanies the bill.
Committee members questioned whether the bill would meaningfully change outcomes for the worst‑injured victims and probed options such as following Washington, D.C.'s model, which preserves contributory negligence except in a narrow subclass of vulnerable highway users.
No vote was taken; proponents urged the committee to weigh fairness to injured pedestrians against potential costs and legal complexity.
