This merely allows businesses to be negligent and nearly always get away with it. It should be assumed that people make mistakes, and that businesses should account for it. This is an outdated, hurtful way to assess negligence.
A win for the general public, to be sure. Having work in NY for decades under the “comparative negligence” principle, be assured of one thing. Regardless of other considerations, the cost of insurance will sky-rocket if this is ever overturned. The application of “comparative negligence” is a boom for the plaintiff’s bar and encourages frivolous actions by making it cost effective to settle many cases due to the high cost of litigation. This may negatively impact some individuals, but it benefits society as a whole.
I guarantee you the trial bar is not done with this. Maryland should be proud that they are one of four states that got it right.
This merely allows businesses to be negligent and nearly always get away with it. It should be assumed that people make mistakes, and that businesses should account for it. This is an outdated, hurtful way to assess negligence.
Was the injured really negligent? The rules of soccer require the goals to be anchored because they are a known danger.
Was it unreasonable to assume that it was anchored and safe to do that?
A win for the general public, to be sure. Having work in NY for decades under the “comparative negligence” principle, be assured of one thing. Regardless of other considerations, the cost of insurance will sky-rocket if this is ever overturned. The application of “comparative negligence” is a boom for the plaintiff’s bar and encourages frivolous actions by making it cost effective to settle many cases due to the high cost of litigation. This may negatively impact some individuals, but it benefits society as a whole.