Enjoy your holiday.
There's this case when a 13 year old (who was trespassing on railroad property) in DC was severely injured by a train and his jury verdict was overturned by a judge, in part, because of contributory negligence - and also the Windom case it cites.
If it be assumed, arguendo, that the railroad was negligent, plaintiff still could not recover because of his own contributory negligence.
Judge Richey found in Windom v. Penn Central Transportation Company, C.A. No. 479-72 (D.D.C.1973), aff'd without opinion, 494 F.2d 1157 (D.C. Cir.1974), that a seven-year, 10-month-old child was contributorily negligent as a matter of law where he sustained injuries upon contact with overhead electrified catenary wires after having climbed to the top of a stationary train.
In short, notwithstanding some factual differences between this case and the precedents cited, the law compels the conclusion that, if the railroad was negligent, plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence, and that this circumstance, too, prevents him from recovering.
There was a time when a Maryland psychiatrist gave a patient a psychedelic drug before sexually assaulting her, and then in court tried to argue she was contributorily negligent. [The argument was rejected, thankfully]
This 1993 article isn't really about contributory negligence, but it does include this line.
Bike lanes aren't totally safe, as long as couriers remain uncontrolled and potholes unfilled. But they are off-limits for motorists, drunk or sober, and that's nirvana enough. [Yes. Totally off limits.]
I can only find the highbeam version of this 1997 op-ed defending contributory negligence - when Maryland was considering getting rid of it - and this letter rebutting it. But I did find this 1998 article, by then Maryland state treasurer Richard N. Dixon, arguing against the change.
To establish a comparative negligence system would be fiscally irresponsible and would cost Maryland -- and its taxpayers -- additional money, by subjecting state employees and agencies to many more lawsuits.
Maryland needs to continue to attract, not scare off, businesses. With so many organizations working to promote Maryland's business climate and create jobs, it is senseless to throw up an unneeded roadblock.
There's also this 1998 letter defending it because "it is rarely if ever applied in practice...Thus, the only reason for Maryland to adopt a comparative negligence standard would be that of intellectual honesty" which is as ringing an endorsement as I've ever heard.
Comments