When Negligence is Not Contributory Negligence

 Blake v. Chadwick, No. 1939, 2021 Md. App. LEXIS 164 (February 26, 2021), Opinion by Moylan, J.        

            Maryland’s adherence to the doctrine of contributory negligence provides a powerful tool to tort defendants to eviscerate potential claims, particularly in circumstances where the liability of the tort defendant appears fairly obvious.  In those circumstances it is understandable for defendants to focus on any and all potential negligent acts of a plaintiff when analyzing whether the claim may be completely barred by the contributory negligence of the plaintiff.  A recent case from the Court of Special Appeals serves as a reminder that the focus on the plaintiff’s actions or inactions should not be the only inquiry when determining if a plaintiff’s negligence arises to contributory negligence.

              In late July 2016, Plaintiff Annette Blake (“Plaintiff”) learned firsthand that the radiator in her minivan was faulty, causing her vehicle to periodically overheat and stall.  Two days later, Plaintiff, accompanied by her two grandchildren, set out to purchase a new radiator and then return to her mechanic across town.  Unfortunately, during the return trip, Plaintiff found herself in the right lane of a shoulderless Martin Luther King Boulevard when her vehicle’s radiator began overheating again.  As a result, Plaintiff’s vehicle stalled in the right lane during the height of rush hour traffic.

             One of the defendants, Denia Phillips Watkins (“Watkins”), found herself situated and stopped in the right lane directly behind Plaintiff’s stalled vehicle.  As such, Watkins had to wait for an opportunity to merge to the center lane to get around Plaintiff’s stalled vehicle.  Contemporaneously, the other defendant, David Chadwick (“Chadwick”), a Baltimore City employee, traveled on the same road in the far-left lane.  Chadwick admitted he saw and took note of Plaintiff’s stalled vehicle.  He then received a call from a city dispatcher calling him to report to a nearby emergency, prompting him to change his route and merge from the far-left lane into the center lane.  Unfortunately, both Chadwick and Watkins made simultaneous attempts to enter the same space in the center lane.  In doing so, their vehicles collided, causing Watkins to strike the side of Plaintiff’s stalled vehicle.

    Plaintiff sued Chadwick and Watkins for negligence in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City.  The defendants filed motions for summary judgement arguing that Plaintiff was contributorily negligent in knowingly operating her vehicle with a faulty radiator and that her vehicle may stall at any moment, which caused or contributed to the accident.  The trial court ruled on the motions in the defendants’ favor. Plaintiff appealed.

On appeal, the Court of Special Appeals recognized Plaintiff’s improvident decisions that set in motion the events leading to the accident, namely operating a vehicle with a faulty radiator in rush hour traffic on a road with no shoulder during the late afternoon of a hot summer day.  The issue, however, was whether Plaintiff’s actions were tantamount to contributory negligence.  On this, the appellate court disagreed with the trial court.

In reaching their conclusion, the appellate court noted that both Chadwick and Watkins were aware of Plaintiff’s stopped vehicle in advance of the collision.  The court concluded that the facts suggested that while Chadwick and Watkins were independently or concertedly negligent in trying to enter the center lane without taking into account each other’s vehicles, Plaintiff’s stopped vehicle was present and known to both defendants for a sufficient period of time.  Accordingly, the negligence of Plaintiff, if any, was passive, potential, distinct, and independent of a collision that was caused by the active negligence of one, or both, of the defendants.

This decision highlights the fact that one cannot simply look to see if a plaintiff acted in some negligent manner leading up to an accident to determine if they were contributorily negligent.  Instead, the totality of the circumstance must be considered, and the actions or inactions of the tortfeasors should also be weighed against the actions or inactions of the potentially contributorily negligent plaintiff to ascertain the actual and proximate cause(s) of an accident.  If the plaintiff’s potential negligence is passive, distinct, and independent of and more attenuated to the cause of an accident, then there is a legitimate question as to whether a plaintiff’s negligence was contributory.

 

-Benjamin Beasley, Associate Attorney