Comparative Negligence (Continued from page 14)
ums. And, so it goes, more claims means more suits, throwing open the floodgates of litigation. Assuming the adoption of compara-
tive negligence is the cataclysmic event forecast by its opponents, one would expect that Maryland, one of the last holdout contributory states, would be a paradise for insurance carriers, not to mention their policyholders. One would expect, in this heavenly insur- ance climate, that Marylanders and the other contributory state residents would pay the lowest insurance premiums in the country. And for those unfortunate souls unlucky enough to suffer under comparative, rates there would be out of this world – certainly much higher than the contributory negligence states. The same logic holds true for de-
mands on the courts. Maryland, with its contributory floodgate should find its court system relatively free of personal injury cases, while comparative states
would be drowning in a flood of these cases. Maryland automobile insurance rates
are no cheaper than elsewhere, and its courts are no less busy than those of other states. Further, in a country with only four contributory negligence states,
a chance to pay nothing other than defense costs if the plaintiff can be sec- ond-guessed, why wouldn’t an insurance company “roll the dice” at trial? Under a comparative system, though, the same insurance company has to think twice about forcing a matter to trial. A find-
Contributory negligence’s all or nothing standard encourag- es defense interests to gamble on the outcome of litigation. Faced with a chance to pay nothing other than defense costs if the plaintiff can be second-guessed, why wouldn’t an insurance company “roll the dice” at trial?
the automobile insurance industry is posting record profits. At the heart of the comparative-deluge
myth is the conveniently masked truth that comparative negligence promotes settlement of claims, while contribu- tory encourages lawsuits. Contributory negligence’s all or nothing standard en- courages defense interests to gamble on the outcome of litigation. Faced with
ing of a percentage of fault means that it pays not only defense costs, but a share of the overall verdict. Tough for a com- parative carrier to justify paying defense counsel and paying the plaintiff. Comparative negligence’s incentive to
settle likely results in an overall reduc- tion of costs carriers incur defending
(Continued on page 18)
Serving MD,DC &
No.VA Nationwide
• Reporters & Videographers Nationwide
• Conference/Mediation Rooms & Office Space
• Videoconferencing/Video Streaming Worldwide
• New Downtown Location • 1 Block from Federal Courthouse • 1 Block from the Inner Harbor
410-837-3027 800-734-5292 202-293-8933 Callus24/7
• Realtime Reporting • Video/Transcript Synchronization • Exhibit Linking • Trial Presentation Services
• Free Parking in Baltimore &Towson to Scheduling Party
• Wireless Internet Access • Administrative Assistance • Beverage & Food Service
Since 1961
20 S. CHA R L E S ST R E E T • SUI T E 90 1 • BA LT IMOR E , MD 21 2 0 1
www.gorebrothers.com
Your Local Connection...Worldwide. 16 Trial Reporter
The National Network Reporting Co.
Fall 2007
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60