Michele Cooper v. David
Good, et al., January
8, 2019 (Court of Special Appeals of Maryland)
The Maryland Court of Special Appeals recently issued an
unreported opinion in Michele Cooper v.
David Good, et al., in which it upheld the trial court’s award of summary
judgment in the Defendant’s favor. The
decision upheld the lower court’s determination that the Plaintiff was
contributorily negligent as a matter of law, and as a result, barred from
recovery against the Defendant.
The underlying facts of this controversy arose when David Good
(“Mr. Good”) was traveling in the right lane of Coastal Highway at a slow
speed in preparation for making a right turn into a nearby restaurant. Signage over the road indicated that the right
lane was reserved for buses, bicycles, and cars making a right turn. Michele
Cooper (“Ms. Cooper”), riding a bicycle, was traveling on the same road and in
the same lane behind Mr. Good’s vehicle.
As she neared Mr. Good’s vehicle and noticed that it was “barely
moving,” she passed his vehicle to his right—between his vehicle and the curb. As
Ms. Cooper attempted to pass Mr. Good’s vehicle, Mr. Good made a right turn,
resulting in a collision from which Ms. Cooper sustained injuries.
Ms. Cooper filed a negligence suit against Mr. Good. Mr. Good filed a motion for summary judgment
against Ms. Cooper, contending that the undisputed facts established that he
was not negligent; rather, Ms. Cooper was contributorily negligent. Although Ms. Cooper argued that there were
material facts of dispute (namely, Mr. Good’s use of his turn signal and his
speed), the trial court granted Mr. Good’s motion, noting that bicyclists are
held to the same rules as other vehicles.
Ms. Cooper appealed to the Maryland Court of Special Appeals, arguing
that the trial court improperly assumed the function of the jury. The Court of Special Appeals disagreed, affirming
the trial court and holding that Ms. Cooper was contributorily negligent as a
matter of law, and that there were no genuine disputes of material fact as to
Ms. Cooper’s own negligence.
Ms. Cooper argued that her maneuver of passing Mr. Good to the
right was lawful because § 21-304(b) of the Transportation Article permits
drivers of vehicles to overtake and pass to the right when it is safe to do
so. The Court of Special Appeals
disagreed, pointing out that a full reading of the Statute suggests that
passing and overtaking to the right is limited to circumstances when the
overtaken vehicle is turning left, or when the roadway is wide enough for more
than two lanes of vehicles. Because
those circumstances were not present in this case, the Court found that Ms.
Cooper violated the Transportation Article.
The Court acknowledged that Ms. Cooper’s statutory violation alone
was insufficient to find her contributorily negligent as a matter of law. As such, the Court considered other
undisputed facts that demonstrated Ms. Cooper’s contributory negligence. Those undisputed facts included: (1) Ms.
Cooper overtaking a slow-moving vehicle to the right in a lane designated for
right-turning traffic only; (2) Ms. Cooper’s admission that she was aware that
other vehicles in that lane could turn right; (3) there were numerous
businesses with entrances along the right side of the roadway; and (4) Ms. Cooper
attempting to pass in a narrow space between the passenger side of Mr. Good’s
vehicle and the curb on the right side of the roadway.
Ms. Cooper further argued that summary judgment was inappropriate
because there existed multiple disputes of material facts, some of
which included: (1) whether Mr. Good used a turn signal; and (2) whether Mr.
Good looked out for Ms. Cooper before turning.
The Court found that these facts were material to whether Mr. Good was
negligent, but had no bearing on Ms. Cooper’s own negligence, which the Court
held was properly decided.
It is important to remember that this unreported opinion from the
Court of Special Appeals is not binding on lower courts. However, it is a significant, but rare,
example of Maryland courts’ willingness to enter and uphold summary judgment based
upon a plaintiff’s contributory negligence.
-Benjamin Beasley, Associate Attorney
No comments:
Post a Comment