Coleman v. Soccer Ass'n
432 Md. 679, 69 A.3d 1149 (2013)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The judicial abrogation of a long-standing common law doctrine, such as contributory negligence, is inappropriate when it involves fundamental public policy considerations that the state legislature has repeatedly considered and declined to change.
Facts:
- James Kyle Coleman, a 20-year-old volunteer, was assisting in coaching a youth soccer team for the Soccer Association of Columbia.
- On August 19, 2008, during a practice on a middle school field, Coleman kicked a soccer ball into a goal.
- To retrieve the ball, Coleman passed under the goal's crossbar, jumped up, and grabbed it.
- The soccer goal was not anchored to the ground.
- The unanchored goal tipped over backwards, and its metal crossbar struck Coleman in the face.
- Coleman suffered severe facial fractures that required surgery and the implantation of three titanium plates.
- Testimony at trial indicated that players commonly hang from soccer goals and that anchoring goals is a standard safety practice in youth soccer.
Procedural Posture:
- James Kyle Coleman filed a negligence lawsuit against the Soccer Association of Columbia in the Circuit Court for Howard County (a state trial court).
- At the close of evidence at the jury trial, Coleman's attorney requested a jury instruction on comparative negligence.
- The trial judge denied the request and instead instructed the jury on the doctrine of contributory negligence.
- The jury returned a verdict finding that both the Soccer Association of Columbia and Coleman were negligent.
- Pursuant to the contributory negligence doctrine, the trial court entered judgment in favor of the Soccer Association of Columbia, barring Coleman from any recovery.
- Coleman filed a notice of appeal to the Court of Special Appeals (Maryland's intermediate appellate court).
- Before the intermediate appellate court could hear the case, Coleman filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the Court of Appeals of Maryland (the state's highest court), which was granted.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Should the Court of Appeals of Maryland judicially abrogate the long-standing common law doctrine of contributory negligence in favor of a comparative negligence standard?
Opinions:
Majority - Eldridge, J.
No. The Court declines to abrogate Maryland’s long-established common law principle of contributory negligence. Although the Court has the authority to modify common law, it must defer to the legislature on matters of fundamental public policy. The Maryland General Assembly has repeatedly considered and rejected bills to replace contributory negligence with comparative negligence. This consistent legislative inaction is very strong evidence that the public policy of the state is to retain the contributory negligence doctrine. Furthermore, the decision to adopt comparative negligence involves complex policy choices, such as choosing between 'pure' or 'modified' forms, which are better suited for legislative deliberation and study than for judicial resolution in a single case. Therefore, following the precedent set in Harrison v. Montgomery County Bd. of Educ., any change to this established doctrine must be made by the legislature.
Dissenting - Harrell, J.
Yes. The Court should abrogate the doctrine of contributory negligence and replace it with a system of pure comparative fault. The dissent characterizes contributory negligence as a 'dinosaur' and an unjust, 'fossilized doctrine' whose original justifications, such as protecting infant industries, are no longer relevant. With 46 states having adopted comparative negligence, Maryland is a stark outlier. The Court should not be bound by stare decisis or legislative inaction when a common law rule it created has become 'unsound in the circumstances of modern life.' Legislative inaction can be attributed to inertia or stalemate, and it is the Court's duty to reform the law to be responsive to the demands of society and correct manifest injustice. Pure comparative fault is the fairest system as it apportions damages based on each party's degree of fault.
Concurring - Greene, J.
No. While acknowledging that comparative negligence appears to be a more equitable system, the Court should defer to the General Assembly. Changing from contributory to comparative negligence is a sweeping revision of tort law that amounts to enacting public policy, which is the normal function of the legislature. To act otherwise would be for the Court to 'impose our will upon the General Assembly.' The legislature is in a better position to comprehensively study and resolve the numerous complex issues that would arise, including the form of comparative negligence to adopt and its impact on collateral doctrines like joint and several liability, contribution, and assumption of risk.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies Maryland's position as one of the few remaining jurisdictions to adhere to the strict, all-or-nothing contributory negligence doctrine. The ruling strongly reinforces the principle of judicial deference to the legislature on major tort reform issues, establishing that repeated legislative rejection of a proposed change is a powerful indicator of public policy that the courts will not override. The case significantly raises the bar for future judicial challenges to the doctrine, effectively channeling all efforts for change through the legislative process. Consequently, tort law in Maryland remains distinct from the vast majority of states, impacting litigation strategy, settlement negotiations, and insurance considerations within the state.
Unlock the full brief for Coleman v. Soccer Ass'n