Maryland Jury Instruction - 1.1 Comparative Negligence Defense

• Category: Federal - Jury Instructions
• State: Multi-State
• Control #: US-11C-0-1-1
• Format: Word; Rich Text

Description

This form contains sample jury instructions, to be used across the United States. These questions are to be used only as a model, and should be altered to more perfectly fit your own cause of action needs. Maryland Jury Instruction — 1.1 Comparative Negligence Defense is a legal instruction provided to jurors in Maryland civil cases that involve allegations of negligence. This instruction helps jurors understand the concept of comparative negligence, which is a defense strategy often used by defendants to reduce or eliminate their liability for damages. 1. Comparative Negligence Defense: The first type of Maryland Jury Instruction — 1.1 Comparative Negligence Defense explains the general principle of comparative negligence. It instructs jurors to consider whether the plaintiff (injured party) contributed to their own harm by acting negligently or failing to take reasonable precautions. If the plaintiff is found partially negligent, their recovery of damages may be reduced in proportion to their negligence. 2. Pure Comparative Negligence: Under this Maryland jury instruction, pure comparative negligence allows the injured party to recover damages even if they are found to be mostly at fault for the accident. In this scenario, the jury determines the percentage of fault for all parties involved and awards damages accordingly. For example, if the plaintiff is found 70% at fault and the defendant is found 30% at fault, the plaintiff's recovery will be limited to 70% of the total damages. 3. Modified Comparative Negligence (50% Rule): This type of comparative negligence defense places a limit on recovery for the plaintiff when their negligence exceeds a certain threshold, usually 50%. If the plaintiff is found to be more than 50% at fault, they are prohibited from recovering any damages. Conversely, if their fault is equal to or less than 50%, they can still recover damages, but the award is reduced based on their own negligence. 4. Modified Comparative Negligence (51% Rule): This version of comparative negligence defense is similar to the 50% rule, but with a slight variation. The injured party can only recover damages if their fault is less than the fault attributed to the defendant. If the plaintiff's fault is equal to or greater than the defendant's fault (51% or more), they are barred from recovering any damages. In summary, Maryland Jury Instruction — 1.1 Comparative Negligence Defense provides jurors with guidance on how to assess and allocate fault in negligence cases. By considering the degree of negligence attributed to each party, jurors can determine the appropriate damages to be awarded or potentially limit the plaintiff's recovery based on their own negligence.

Maryland Jury Instruction — 1.1 Comparative Negligence Defense is a legal instruction provided to jurors in Maryland civil cases that involve allegations of negligence. This instruction helps jurors understand the concept of comparative negligence, which is a defense strategy often used by defendants to reduce or eliminate their liability for damages. 1. Comparative Negligence Defense: The first type of Maryland Jury Instruction — 1.1 Comparative Negligence Defense explains the general principle of comparative negligence. It instructs jurors to consider whether the plaintiff (injured party) contributed to their own harm by acting negligently or failing to take reasonable precautions. If the plaintiff is found partially negligent, their recovery of damages may be reduced in proportion to their negligence. 2. Pure Comparative Negligence: Under this Maryland jury instruction, pure comparative negligence allows the injured party to recover damages even if they are found to be mostly at fault for the accident. In this scenario, the jury determines the percentage of fault for all parties involved and awards damages accordingly. For example, if the plaintiff is found 70% at fault and the defendant is found 30% at fault, the plaintiff's recovery will be limited to 70% of the total damages. 3. Modified Comparative Negligence (50% Rule): This type of comparative negligence defense places a limit on recovery for the plaintiff when their negligence exceeds a certain threshold, usually 50%. If the plaintiff is found to be more than 50% at fault, they are prohibited from recovering any damages. Conversely, if their fault is equal to or less than 50%, they can still recover damages, but the award is reduced based on their own negligence. 4. Modified Comparative Negligence (51% Rule): This version of comparative negligence defense is similar to the 50% rule, but with a slight variation. The injured party can only recover damages if their fault is less than the fault attributed to the defendant. If the plaintiff's fault is equal to or greater than the defendant's fault (51% or more), they are barred from recovering any damages. In summary, Maryland Jury Instruction — 1.1 Comparative Negligence Defense provides jurors with guidance on how to assess and allocate fault in negligence cases. By considering the degree of negligence attributed to each party, jurors can determine the appropriate damages to be awarded or potentially limit the plaintiff's recovery based on their own negligence.