Often when a person violates a law, someone else is harmed. In some cases,
that other person may have a compensable injury that gives rise to a
personal injury suit based in negligence. When that happens, Maryland law treats the legal
violation as evidence that the violator was negligent.
Evidence of Negligence
Under Maryland law, violating a statute such as a leash law, building safety
code, or statute prohibiting cell phone use while driving does not give
rise to negligence as a matter of law. However, if an injured person can
show that the at-fault party violated the law, that violation will be
treated as evidence that the at-fault party was
negligent, as long as:
●The plaintiff is a member of the class that the statute is designed to protect;
●The injury is of the type that the statute was designed to prevent; and
●The violation of the statute was the proximate cause of the injury.
First, the statute must have been enacted for the purpose of protecting
type of harm that the plaintiff suffered. The plaintiff must be a member of a particular
class to be protected from certain specific types of harm and not merely
a member of the general public.
For example, laws prohibiting cell phone use while driving are enacted
to protect other motorists and pedestrians. Building safety codes are
designed to protect the people who go inside the building. Additionally,
Maryland’s law mandating
seatbelt use may not be used as evidence of negligence or as evidence of contributory
negligence to reduce an accident victim’s recovery.
Secondly, the injury must be the sort that the statute was designed to
protect against. For example, if the violation of a leash law is to be
used as evidence of negligence, the injury at issue must be a dog attack.
If a person was injured because of tripping and falling while running
away in fright at seeing an unleashed dog, that injury would not be the
kind of harm that the leash law was designed to protect against. However,
a dog bite would be.
Finally, the violation of the statute must be the
proximate cause of the injury. This means that there must be a sufficiently close causal
connection between the violation and the harm. For example, a building
code may require adequate lighting in parking lots, but a business does
not adequately light its parking lot. In winter, the lot is covered in
black ice, and a customer trips and falls at night in the poorly lit lot.
Though the parking lot was not well-lit, the ice, rather than the poor
lighting, was the proximate cause of the injury. Thus, the customer will
not be able to use the code violation as evidence of negligence.
However, if the customer trips over a curb in the lot because the poor
lighting makes it difficult to see the curb, proximate cause does exist
and the customer will be able to introduce the violation as evidence of
the business’s negligence.
Compliance with Statutes
Though the violation of a statute is evidence of negligence,
compliance with a statute will not necessarily preclude a finding of negligence. If a reasonable
person would have taken steps beyond those required by statute to protect
against harm, then mere compliance will not be sufficient to protect against
Charles County, MD Personal Injury Lawyers that Fight for You
If you have been injured because of another’s carelessness or wrongdoing,
please contact a Maryland personal injury attorney at the
Law Office of Robert R. Castro to schedule an initial consultation.