Maryland applies contributory negligence. If the injured person's own negligence contributed to the injury, even slightly, the claim can fail completely. There is no reduction in proportion to blame. It is all or nothing.
Alabama, North Carolina, Virginia and the District of Columbia apply the same rule. Every other state uses some form of comparative fault, where an award is reduced by the injured person's share rather than wiped out. Maryland's highest court considered abandoning the rule and declined to, leaving any change to the legislature.
What the rule means in practice
Two claims with identical injuries can end very differently:
- In a comparative fault state, a driver found 20 percent responsible for a crash recovers 80 percent of their damages.
- In Maryland, that same finding of 20 percent can mean recovering nothing.
This is why Maryland insurers investigate the injured person as closely as their own insured. An adjuster who can attach a small share of blame to you is not reducing the claim, they are ending it. It shapes everything about how a Maryland claim should be handled from day one.
The narrow exceptions
The rule is harsh, so the exceptions matter:
- Last clear chance. Where the defendant had a final, genuine opportunity to avoid the harm after the injured person's own carelessness had already occurred, recovery may still be possible.
- Children. Very young children are not held to an adult standard of care, and below a certain age are generally not capable of negligence at all.
- Intentional or reckless conduct. Ordinary contributory negligence is not a defense to conduct that goes beyond negligence.
- Statutory protections. Some claims are governed by statutes that displace the ordinary rule, and workers' compensation operates on an entirely different basis where fault is not the question.
Whether an exception applies is fact-specific and usually contested. It is not something to assume on either side.
How insurers use the rule against you
The argument is rarely dramatic. It is built from small admissions gathered early:
- "I glanced down for a second."
- "I was going a little over the limit."
- "I did not see him until it was too late."
- "I knew that step was loose."
- "I probably should not have been carrying that much."
None of those statements is an admission of legal fault, and all of them can be used to argue one. This is the practical reason not to give a recorded statement before speaking with a lawyer, and not to discuss fault at the scene beyond the facts of what occurred.
Where the rule bites hardest
- [Car accidents](/car-accident-lawyer/): speed, following distance and phone use are the standard arguments.
- [Pedestrian and cyclist claims](/pedestrian-accident-attorney/): crossing location and visibility are raised in almost every file.
- [Slip and fall](/slip-and-fall-lawyer/): whether the hazard was open and obvious, and whether you were watching where you walked.
- [Dog bites](/dog-bite-lawyers/): provocation, which is argued even when the person bitten is a child.
- Passengers, by contrast, are rarely exposed to it, which is why passenger claims are often the cleanest.
What to do if you are being blamed
- Do not accept blame to be polite, at the scene or on the phone.
- Report facts, not conclusions. What happened, not what you think you should have done.
- Decline a recorded statement to the other side's insurer until you have advice.
- Preserve the evidence that shows the sequence: photographs, video, witnesses and the police report.
- Get advice early. The evidence that defeats a contributory negligence argument is usually gathered in the first weeks or not at all.
An insurer telling you that you were at fault is a negotiating position, not a legal ruling. Have someone look at it before you accept it.
