Maryland is one of only four jurisdictions still using pure contributory negligence: any plaintiff fault bars recovery entirely. Authority: Coleman v. Soccer Ass'n of Columbia.
The Maryland pattern jury instructions ask jurors to determine: (1) was the defendant negligent? (2) was the plaintiff negligent? (3) was each party\'s negligence a substantial factor in causing the injury? (4) what percentage of fault, totaling 100%, do you assign to each party?
The court applies the pure contributory negligence formula to those percentages after the verdict form is returned.
Comparative negligence in Maryland is the single most important doctrine for predicting case value. Lawyers price cases based on liability strength, but the operative variable on the verdict form is the plaintiff's percentage of fault.
Maryland sits with Alabama, Maryland, North Carolina, and DC as the only jurisdictions retaining the 19th-century pure contributory rule. Even a slight finding of plaintiff negligence wipes out an otherwise meritorious case.
Pre-trial settlement valuation and trial strategy in Maryland both turn on these numbers. Below: five scenarios at common verdict sizes and fault percentages, with the recovery a Maryland plaintiff would actually receive under the state\'s pure contributory negligence rule.
| Verdict | Plaintiff fault | Net recovery | Reduction |
|---|---|---|---|
| $100,000 | 10% | $0 | $100,000 |
| $250,000 | 25% | $0 | $250,000 |
| $500,000 | 49% | $0 | $500,000 |
| $500,000 | 50% | $0 | $500,000 |
| $1,000,000 | 60% | $0 | $1,000,000 |
Worked example: a Maryland jury awards a plaintiff $500,000 in damages and finds the plaintiff 10% at fault. Under the state's pure contributory negligence rule, the plaintiff actually recovers $0.
Scenario: a slip-and-fall plaintiff is awarded $1,000,000 by a Maryland jury, with 25% of fault attributed to them for not watching where they walked. Under Maryland law (pure contributory negligence), the final award is $0.
Scenario: a slip-and-fall plaintiff is awarded $1,000,000 by a Maryland jury, with 49% of fault attributed to them for not watching where they walked. Under Maryland law (pure contributory negligence), the final award is $0.
Worked example: a Maryland jury awards a plaintiff $500,000 in damages and finds the plaintiff 50% at fault. Under the state's pure contributory negligence rule, the plaintiff actually recovers $0.
Scenario: a slip-and-fall plaintiff is awarded $1,000,000 by a Maryland jury, with 60% of fault attributed to them for not watching where they walked. Under Maryland law (pure contributory negligence), the final award is $0.
Plaintiffs' attorneys in Maryland screen cases with the comparative-fault rule front of mind. A case where the defense can credibly argue the plaintiff was 40%+ at fault gets a different intake decision in a 50%-bar state than in a pure-comparative state.
In contested Maryland cases, the jury is the final arbiter of fault percentages. Pre-trial, lawyers run focus groups and mock juries to predict how an average Maryland juror will allocate responsibility on the specific facts , those predictions then drive settlement leverage.
Maryland comparative-negligence rules only matter if you file on time. The state\'s personal-injury statute of limitations is 3 years from the date of injury (Md. Code Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 5-101). Even an airtight liability case is dismissed with prejudice if the complaint is filed late.
Maryland applies pure contributory negligence. Maryland is one of only four jurisdictions still using pure contributory negligence: any plaintiff fault bars recovery entirely.
Maryland has no threshold , any plaintiff fault, even 1%, bars all recovery.
Maryland jurors are presented with a special verdict form asking them to assign fault percentages totaling 100% to each party (and any non-party at fault under joint-tortfeasor rules). The trial court then applies the comparative-fault formula to compute the final recovery.
Yes. Maryland juries can apportion fault among multiple defendants (and sometimes non-party tortfeasors). The treatment of joint and several liability , whether each defendant is liable only for their share or for the entire judgment if others are insolvent , varies by state statute.
Maryland courts vary on the "seat-belt defense." Some states allow evidence of non-use as a fault factor; others (by statute or judicial rule) exclude it. Plaintiffs\' counsel should consult current Maryland appellate decisions before deciding how to handle the issue at trial.
Generally yes , Maryland\'s comparative-fault rule applies across negligence claims, including medical malpractice. Some states adjust the framework for medmal cases (e.g., reducing the plaintiff-fault relevance because patients rarely contribute to their own injuries in the traditional sense), but the basic rule applies unless the statute carves out an exception.
In contributory-negligence Maryland, defendants have enormous leverage: any credible argument of plaintiff fault threatens total bar. Plaintiffs settle for less than they might in comparative states.
Last verified against primary sources on 2026-05-16.