Maryland
How Bourdieu v. C&S Wholesale Grocers applies in Maryland: state-specific rules, key cases, and bar exam notes for Torts.
Maryland courts recognize the doctrine of negligence per se, where a violation of a statute can establish a breach of duty. In Bourdieu, the principles surrounding foreseeability and duty aligned closely with Maryland’s long-standing tort law regarding fall incidents in commercial establishments.
In Maryland, for a plaintiff to prevail in a negligence action, they must demonstrate that the defendant owed a duty of care, breached that duty, and that the breach caused the plaintiff's injuries, which can be established via statutes that are violated.
The court held that a utility company may be liable for negligence if it fails to maintain its equipment properly, contributing to an injury.
The court found that schools have a duty to protect students from foreseeable harm on their premises arising from negligent actions.
The ruling emphasized the importance of following safety protocols to avoid negligence claims, particularly in settings that pose risks to public safety.
While federal standards often rely on a more general application of negligence principles, Maryland emphasizes negligence per se and clearly defined statutory duties as a basis for claiming breach. The Maryland approach allows for the violation of a statute to serve as a strong foundation for establishing negligence, which may vary from federal rulings that require a broader analysis of duty and breach.
Understanding negligence per se is crucial for the Maryland bar exam, especially regarding premises liability cases like Bourdieu. Candidates should be familiar with the application of state statutes in establishing a duty of care.