Sales and Use Tax - Distribution - City of Baltimore
HB0594 creates a special comparative-negligence rule for civil lawsuits arising from motor vehicle accidents involving a “vulnerable individual” as that term is defined in Maryland transportation law. In those cases, a plaintiff’s recovery would not be completely barred just because the plaintiff was negligent, unless the plaintiff’s negligence was both a proximate cause of the injury and greater than the combined negligence of all defendants who also proximately caused the injury.
If the plaintiff is allowed to recover, any damages awarded must be reduced in proportion to the plaintiff’s share of negligence. The bill also states that it does not change Maryland’s rules on joint and several liability or the doctrine of last clear chance, and it applies only to causes of action arising on or after its October 1, 2025 effective date.
The bill would add a new Section 11-302 to the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article, creating a narrower negligence standard for certain motor-vehicle injury claims brought by vulnerable individuals. It would modify how fault is allocated in those cases by limiting when contributory negligence can bar recovery and by requiring proportional reduction of damages, while leaving other liability doctrines intact. The practical effect would be to expand potential recovery for vulnerable road users and shift some risk to negligent drivers and their insurers in covered cases.
The available context shows no committee testimony or recorded votes, so there is no documented public debate in the provided materials. Based on the bill text, the measure appears designed to protect vulnerable individuals injured in motor vehicle crashes, suggesting a generally victim-protective policy approach. Because there are no transcripts or vote results, the level of support or opposition cannot be determined from the supplied record.
The main legal point of contention is likely the bill’s departure from Maryland’s usual contributory-negligence framework in a defined class of cases. Supporters would likely favor the bill because it preserves recovery for vulnerable individuals unless their negligence exceeds that of all defendants combined, while opponents may argue it increases exposure for drivers and insurers and creates a special rule for a subset of plaintiffs. The bill expressly preserves joint and several liability and last clear chance, which may also be important to litigants and insurers concerned about how the new rule interacts with existing tort doctrines.