Understanding Contributory Negligence With A Baltimore Injury Lawyer

By Author: James Rockett
Total Articles: 64
Comment this article

The “Baltimore & Ohio R. Co. v. Goodman” case is a bitter, but most fitting example of how contributory negligence works. Goodman lost his life while driving across a railroad crossing as a Baltimore & Ohio railroad train hit him. Even though Goodman’s widow argued that his view of the crossing was blocked, the Court supported the fact that he did not stop, look or listen to cautionary measures that were a must due to which absolutely no recovery was granted.

Comparative Negligence vs. Contributory Negligence

If injured in the state of Maryland, it’s essential to first opt for a no-obligations consult with a Baltimore injury lawyer, simply due to the existence of this tort in personal injury cases. Most states have something called comparative negligence which means if the injured party was negligent too on top of the defendant’s mistake that caused the accident, then the extent of negligence is calculated and the recovery amount payable to the plaintiff is reduced accordingly.

Contributory ...
... negligence is the harsher crime since even if the plaintiff was negligent to a very small extent; he or she will lose the entire recovery if the negligence is proven. On one hand, this tort has kept sham injury cases at bay but at the same time many genuinely deserving victims have lost their awards which would have been payable to them if they were in any state other than Maryland, Alabama, District of Columbia, North Carolina or Virginia. It’s well known how motorcyclists have a higher chance of finding themselves injured in an accident than any other vehicle as their right of way can be easily violated.

Even if your situation is as obvious as this one, it’s best to first consult legal advice before filing any charges. A Baltimore motorcycle accident lawyer will tell you whether you face the risk of contributory negligence or not, since this risk isn’t worth taking for someone who’s already injured and facing financial difficulties.

Last Clear Chance

The doctrine of “last clear chance” is the only doctrine that stands up against the contributory negligence tort. It relied on exactly how the accident happened. Say a woman got hit by a car, driven by a man who drove above the speed limit. But, she was crossing the road when the signal said she shouldn’t. Hence, her contributory negligence is proved here. Now a Baltimore car accident lawyer would use the last clear chance to analyze if the man behind the wheel had the last chance to avoid the mishap. If he did, then she is entitled to some recovery depending on more factors than those just mentioned.

Remember, the foundation of contributory negligence is the conduct that falls below the standards established by law for self protection. If you did everything to protect yourself, you needn’t worry about it.