Injury Lawyer Opposes Comparative Fault
As an Orlando injury lawyer, I read with interest a news article about the struggle to bring the comparative negligence doctrine to injury victims in Maryland. Unlike Florida, Maryland bars any recovery by personal injury victims found to have contributed to the injury or damages claimed. Under this doctrine of contributory negligence many deserving injury victims receive no compensation.
Florida is well within the majority of states that find the contributory negligence rule to be draconian and out-dated. Certainly, it is difficult to imagine a more unfair rule than one which allows a wrongdoer to completely escape responsibility for injury or wrongful death because his lawyer can convince a jury that the victim played some role in the incident. How unjust for a property owner or product maker to create a dangerous situation and avoid accountability by cleverly arguing some degree of fault on the part of the injury victim.
What’s more disheartening about the legislative battle in Maryland is the point made in the Maryland Injury Lawyer Blog. Apparently, the chief opposition to the effort to allow injury lawyers to obtain recovery for clients based on comparative fault is lead by a personal injury lawyer-one with an agenda that seeks to protect his own practice.
Peter Angelos, a personal injury lawyer and owner of the Baltimore Orioles, has determined that he should use his money and influence to prevent injury victims from benefiting from the fairness of the comparative negligence doctrine. His fear of recovery in his asbestosis laden case load puts him at odds with all other personal injury lawyers in that state. While he appears not to oppose the proposed legislation to bring comparative negligence to that state, he is concerned about amendments which may impact recovery where some defendants are insolvent.
I admit to being an outsider in this tort battle in a sister state. However, as an injury lawyer, it is troubling that one among us would sacrifice the overwhelming benefits to the majority of injury victims for the good of one lawyer’s practice. Perhaps I am missing something…if I am, I will be pleased to learn what it is.
