Maryland Accident Lawyer Blog

In Gables Construction, Inc. v. Red Coats, the Maryland Court of Special Appeals earlier this month addressed the issue of whether a party can be liable for contribution as a joint tortfeasor even if that party was able to avoid direct liability because of it passed along its responsibility in a contractual waiver of subrogation.

In other words, can you sneak out of responsibility as a joint tortfeasor if someone else has accepted your responsibility for the loss?   This is the first time a Maryland court has ever addressed this issue.

Facts of Gable Construction

All litigation attorneys in Maryland are probably very familiar with the Maryland Pattern Jury Instructions (“MPJI”). The MPJI published by the Maryland State Bar Association through the efforts of a special MSBA committee comprised of practitioners.

Both the Criminal and Civil MPJI are widely used by judges across the state to give written instructions to juries. The Court of Appeals has repeatedly made clear that the Pattern Jury Instructions have “no official status” and trial courts are not obligated to use or adopted them. Armacost v. Davis (Md.2019) However, the reality is that the MPJI are universally relied on by judges and attorneys alike when instructing juries.

The Maryland Pattern Jury Instructions are intended to provide short, understandable and accurate statements of certain points of law in Maryland. The original version of the Pattern Jury Instructions was first published back in the 1980s. Since then the MPJI have been periodically revised and republished to reflect significant changes and developments in Maryland law. The most recent revision of the MPJI is the 5^th Edition which the MSBA published in the fall of 2017. Among the many changes and revisions in the 5^th Edition of the MPJI is a new definition of proximate causation at § 19:10.

It is not explicitly illegal, but it is recommended by all jurisdictions that you should clear snow off your car. The driver’s manuals in Maryland and Virginia both include snow removal.

Is there a Maryland law that says that you should not be able to have snow on your car so it does not come flying off and blind me?   Sort of.  Transportation Code §21-1104 states that a person may not drive a vehicle if obstructs the driver’s view of the front or sides of the vehicle. They may not drive a vehicle if it interferes with the control of the driver’s. However, the law would likely have a broad application in cases involving snow on top of cars. But no one is going to pull you over for having too much snow on your case.

About a decade ago, the D.C. city council approved legislation that required drivers to remove snow and ice from their vehicles. However, the law never became permanent.

If you drove to a New Year’s Party in Utah on Monday and decided to have a few drinks,  the risk of getting arrest for drug driving increased dramatically.  On Saturday (December 30th) Utah lowered its legal blood-alcohol content (BAC) limit from 0.08 to 0.05.  This gives Utah the strictest DUI laws in the country. This follows a National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) recommendation that all states should lower their legal BAC limits to 0.05.

Before we go further, you are saying you know you fine at .05, right?  But define “fine”.  Do I feel like I can drive a car at .05?  I do.  Do I ever drive at .05 with my kids in the car?  I don’t.  Setting aside the stunning hypocrisy for a second, I do this because I’ve been competing with my friends and family at goofy things my whole life.  So I know that a little bit of alcohol slows me down just a bit because I can’t play video games or golf or anything else quite as well after two drinks than zero.

H.B. 155