|
While the Maryland General Assembly is not currently in session, important legislative work continues during the interim. Summer study briefings will soon get underway on whether Maryland should move away from contributory negligence and adopt some form of comparative negligence.
This is an issue physicians should be watching closely.
During the 2026 legislative session, House Bill 466 raised the issue of comparative negligence in a limited context involving certain motor vehicle accidents. Rather than moving the legislation forward, the House Judiciary Committee referred the issue to interim study. (Maryland General Assembly) The briefing materials now being developed make clear that legislators intend to look more broadly at the differences between contributory and comparative negligence and the potential legal, practical, insurance, and economic consequences of changing Maryland law.
A Judiciary Committee briefing is currently planned for Oct. 20 as part of that interim review. The topics under consideration include how other states handle comparative negligence, what model Maryland might adopt, and how a change could affect plaintiffs, defendants, insurance claims, litigation, settlements, and jury decisions.
Maryland is currently one of only five jurisdictions that continues to follow the traditional contributory negligence rule. Under contributory negligence, when a plaintiff’s own negligence contributes to the injury, that negligence can, when the legal requirements are satisfied, completely bar recovery.
Most states instead use some version of comparative negligence. Under those systems, responsibility is divided between the parties. A plaintiff who bears some responsibility for an injury may still be able to recover damages, although the award may be reduced based on the plaintiff’s percentage of responsibility.
Why This Matters to Physicians
One of the most important implications for medical liability involves patient responsibility and patient noncompliance.
Physicians routinely give patients instructions that are essential to successful treatment. A patient may be told to take prescribed medication, return for follow-up appointments, obtain additional testing, change diet or activity, stop smoking, monitor symptoms, or seek immediate care if certain warning signs develop.
Sometimes patients do not follow those instructions.
Under Maryland’s existing contributory negligence doctrine, patient conduct can, in appropriate cases, become an important defense when the patient’s own negligence contributed to the injury being claimed.
A move to comparative negligence could substantially change that analysis.
Patient noncompliance would not necessarily become irrelevant. A jury could still consider what the patient did or failed to do. But depending on the comparative negligence system Maryland adopts, a patient’s own negligence might no longer serve as a complete bar to recovery. Instead, responsibility could be divided between the physician and patient, allowing a patient to recover damages even after a jury concludes that the patient’s own conduct contributed to the outcome.
That is a significant change.
Medicine is a partnership. Physicians have substantial responsibilities. They must meet the standard of care, communicate appropriately, diagnose and treat patients, explain risks, and provide reasonable follow-up.
But patients have responsibilities as well.
A patient who ignores repeated medical advice, fails to take prescribed medications, does not obtain recommended testing, or otherwise fails to participate in his or her own care can materially affect the clinical outcome. Any change to Maryland’s negligence laws should preserve meaningful recognition of that responsibility.
The Judiciary Committee’s interim review will also examine the potential effect of a change on litigation, insurance claims, settlements, jury determinations, and the broader economic consequences of changing Maryland’s existing system. Those questions are especially important in medical liability, where increased exposure can ultimately affect professional liability premiums, physician practice decisions, and access to care.
There are legitimate arguments on both sides of the contributory-versus-comparative-negligence debate, and the fact that most states have moved to comparative negligence deserves serious consideration.
But Maryland should not make such a fundamental change without carefully considering the consequences for health care.
The summer study process gives physicians an important opportunity to be part of that discussion before legislation returns to Annapolis in 2027.
MedChi will be closely following the interim briefings and working to ensure that policymakers understand how any change would affect physicians, patients, medical liability, and access to care.
Physicians should be accountable when care falls below the appropriate standard, but our civil justice system should also recognize an equally important principle: Patients have responsibilities too.
Gene M. Ransom III
CEO
MedChi, The Maryland State Medical Society
| 
