Contributory Negligence Report

Highlight:

IV. IMPACT OF ADOPTION OF COMPARATIVE FAULT IN OTHER STATES

...
In its 2004 Report, the Department of Legislative Reference reviewed a number of the studies that had been made, including the ones presented to the Rules Committee, and drew this general conclusion:

“Relatively few studies have attempted to address this subject. Some have found no or a small overall impact, while others have concluded that a switch from contributory to comparative leads to substantially higher costs. Regardless of result, those studies have been criticized for lack of academic rigor and/or for not having taken into account other factors that could have contributed to increased costs, in studies that reached this conclusion. In the absence of any comprehensive study, it is impossible to state with any certainty the direct and indirect consequences of changing to a comparative negligence system.”
(Emphasis added).36

The Rules Committee’s review of those studies leads it to the same conclusion. The basis of the MDLS conclusion is set forth in greater detail in Chapter 4 of its Report, and the Committee respectfully directs the Court’s attention to that analysis. The one salient factor, as to which there is no dispute, is that none of the 46 States that adopted a form of comparative fault have switched back to the common law contributory negligence approach, whatever the impact may have been from the initial change.

.
<a href="http://www.courts.state.md.us/rules/reports/170thReport.pdf">http://www.courts.state.md.us/rules/reports/170thReport.pdf</a>;

found via <a href="http://rss.justia.com/~r/MarylandInjuryLawyerBlogCom/~3/WZay4lF3rm4/contributory_negligence_report.html">http://rss.justia.com/~r/MarylandInjuryLawyerBlogCom/~3/WZay4lF3rm4/contributory_negligence_report.html</a>;