Coleman v. Soccer Ass'n of Columbia, No. 9

CourtCourt of Appeals of Maryland
Writing for the CourtELDRIDGE
Citation69 A.3d 1149,432 Md. 679
PartiesJames COLEMAN et al. v. SOCCER ASSOCIATION OF COLUMBIA.
Decision Date09 July 2013
Docket NumberSept. Term, 2012.,No. 9

432 Md. 679
69 A.3d 1149

James COLEMAN et al.
v.
SOCCER ASSOCIATION OF COLUMBIA.

No. 9, Sept. Term, 2012.

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

July 9, 2013.



John Vail (Center for Constitutional Litigation, P.C., Washington, D.C.), on brief, Bruce M. Plaxen (Plaxen & Adler, P.A., Columbia, MD; Lloyd J. Eisenberg of Lloyd J. Eisenberg & Associates P.A., Columbia, MD), on brief for Appellant/Cross–Appellee.

[69 A.3d 1150]

Wayne M. Willoughby (Gershon, Willoughby, Getz & Smith, LLC, Baltimore, MD), for Amicus Curiae brief of Professor Robert H. Lande in Support of Plaintiff–Petitioner.


Robert J. Zarbin (James K. MacAlister, Upper Marlboro, MD), for Amicus Curiae brief of Maryland Association for Justice in Support of Plaintiff–Petitioner.

Douglas W. Biser (Matthew P. Lalumia of Mudd, Harrison & Burch, L.L.P., Towson, MD), on brief, M. Albert Figinski (Peter G. Angelos amd Jeffrey J. Utermohle of Law Offices of Peter G. Angelos, P.C., Baltimore, MD—Brief of Amicus Curiae, Law Offices of Peter G. Angelos, P.C.), on brief, for Appellees/Cross–Appellants.

Gardner M. Duvall (Danielle G. Marcus, Peter W. Sheehan, Jr. of Whiteford, Taylor & Preston, L.L.P., Baltimore, MD), for Amicus Curiae brief of Maryland Defense Counsel.

Karen J. Kruger (David M. Funk of Funk & Bolton, P.A., Baltimore, MD), for Amici Curiae brief of Local Government Insurance Trust, Maryland Association of Counties, Maryland Municipal League, Mayor and City Council of Baltimore.

Paul A. Tiburzi (Carville B. Collins of DLA Piper LLP (US), Baltimore, MD), for Amici Curiae brief of the Maryland Chamber of Commerce and the Maryland Tort Reform Coalition in Support of Appellees.

Mark A. Behrens, Esquire, Christopher E. Appel, Esquire, Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P., Washington, DC, for Amici Curiae brief of the American Tort Reform Association, Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, Coalition for Litigation Justice, Inc., American Insurance Association, Property Casualty Insurers Association of America, National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies, Physician Insurers Association of America, American Medical Association, and NFIB Small Business Legal Center in Support of Respondents.

Argued before BELL, C.J.,*HARRELL, BATTAGLIA, GREENE, McDONALD, JOHN C. ELDRIDGE (Retired, Specially Assigned) and IRMA S. RAKER (Retired, Specially Assigned) JJ.

ELDRIDGE, J.

[432 Md. 682]Thirty years ago, in Harrison v. Montgomery County Bd. of Educ., 295 Md. 442, 444, 456 A.2d 894 (1983), this Court issued a writ of certiorari to decide “whether the common law doctrine of contributory negligence should be judicially abrogated in Maryland and the doctrine of comparative negligence adopted in its place as the rule governing trial of negligence actions in this State.” In a comprehensive opinion by then Chief Judge Robert C. Murphy, the Court in Harrison, 295 Md. at 463, 456 A.2d at 905, declined to abandon the doctrine of contributory negligence in favor of comparative negligence, pointing out that such change “involves fundamental and basic public policy considerations properly to be addressed by the legislature.”

The petitioner in the case at bar presents the same issue that was presented in Harrison, namely whether this Court should change the common law and abrogate the defense of contributory negligence in certain types of tort actions. After reviewing the issue again, we shall arrive at the same conclusion that the Court reached in Harrison.

[69 A.3d 1151]

I.

The petitioner and plaintiff below, James Kyle Coleman, was an accomplished soccer player who had volunteered to assist in coaching a team of young soccer players in a program of the Soccer Association of Columbia, in Howard County, Maryland. On August 19, 2008, Coleman, at the time 20 years old, was assisting the coach during the practice of a team of young soccer players on the field of the Lime Kiln Middle [432 Md. 683]School. While the Soccer Association of Columbia had fields of its own, it did not have enough to accommodate all of the program's young soccer players; the Association was required to use school fields for practices. At some point during the practice, Coleman kicked a soccer ball into a soccer goal. As he passed under the goal's metal top rail, or crossbar, to retrieve the ball, he jumped up and grabbed the crossbar. The soccer goal was not anchored to the ground, and, as he held on to the upper crossbar, Coleman fell backwards, drawing the weight of the crossbar onto his face. He suffered multiple severe facial fractures which required surgery and the placing of three titanium plates in his face. Coleman instituted the present action by filing a complaint, in the Circuit Court for Howard County, alleging that he was injured by the defendants' negligence.1 The defendant and respondent, the Soccer Association of Columbia, asserted the defense of contributory negligence.

At the ensuing jury trial, the soccer coach who had invited Coleman to help coach the soccer players testified that he had not inspected or anchored the goal which fell on Coleman. The coach also testified that the goal was not owned or provided by the Soccer Association, and he did not believe that it was his responsibility to anchor the goal. During the trial, the parties disputed whether the goal was located in an area under the supervision and control of the Soccer Association and whether the Soccer Association was required to inspect and anchor the goal. The Soccer Association presented testimony tending to show that, because the goal was not owned by the Soccer Association, the Soccer Association owed no [432 Md. 684]duty to Coleman. The Soccer Association also presented testimony that the condition of the goal was open and obvious to all persons. The Association maintained that the accident was caused solely by Coleman's negligence.

Testimony was provided by Coleman to the effect that players commonly hang from soccer goals and that his actions should have been anticipated and expected by the Soccer Association. Coleman also provided testimony that anchoring goals is a standard safety practice in youth soccer.

At the close of evidence, Coleman's attorney proffered a jury instruction on comparative negligence.2 The judge declined

[69 A.3d 1152]

to give Coleman's proffered comparative negligence instruction and, instead, instructed the jury on contributory negligence.

The jury was given a verdict sheet posing several questions. The first question was: “Do you find that the Soccer Association of Columbia was negligent?” The jury answered “yes” to this question. The jury also answered “yes” to the question: “Do you find that the Soccer Association of Columbia's negligence caused the Plaintiff's injuries?” Finally, the jury answered “yes” to the question: “Do you find that the Plaintiff was negligent and that his negligence contributed to his claimed injuries?”

In short, the jury concluded that the Soccer Association of Columbia was negligent and that the Soccer Association's negligence caused Coleman's injuries. The jury also found that Coleman was negligent, and that his negligence contributed to his own injuries. Because of the contributory negligence [432 Md. 685]finding, Coleman was barred from any recovery. The trial court denied Coleman's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and subsequently entered judgment in favor of the Soccer Association of Columbia.

Coleman filed a notice of appeal, and the Soccer Association filed a notice of cross-appeal.3 Before briefing and argument in the Court of Special Appeals, Coleman filed in this Court a petition for a writ of certiorari, which was granted. Coleman v. Soccer Ass'n of Columbia, 425 Md. 396, 41 A.3d 570 (2012). In his petition, Coleman posed only one question: whether this Court should retain the standard of contributory negligence as the common law standard governing negligence cases in the State of Maryland.

We shall hold that, although this Court has the authority to change the common law rule of contributory negligence, we decline to abrogate Maryland's long-established common law principle of contributory negligence.

II.

This Court last addressed the continuing viability of the contributory negligence doctrine in Harrison v. Montgomery County Bd. of Educ., supra, 295 Md. 442, 456 A.2d 894. In Harrison, the Court held that the contributory negligence principle remained the valid standard in Maryland negligence cases and that “any change in the established doctrine [was for] the Legislature.” 295 Md. at 463, 456 A.2d at 905.

[432 Md. 686]Chief Judge Murphy, for the Court in Harrison, began his review of the contributory negligence standard by tracing the standard's historical origins to Lord Chief Justice Ellenborough's opinion in Butterfield v. Forrester, 11 East 60, 103 Eng.

[69 A.3d 1153]

Rep. 926 (K.B. 1809).4 As Harrison explained the case,

“Butterfield left a public inn at dusk, mounted his horse and rode off ‘violently’ down the street. Forrester, who was effecting some repairs to his house, had placed a pole in the roadway. Although Butterfield could have seen and avoided the obstruction, he did not and was injured. The [English] court there noted:

‘One person being in fault will not dispense with another's using ordinary care for himself. Two things must concur to support this action, an obstruction in the road by the fault of the defendant, and no want of ordinary care to avoid it on the part of the plaintiff.’ [11 East] at 61, 103 Eng. Rep. at 927.”

The Harrison opinion explained that, when the contributory negligence standard was first judicially adopted in the United States, the courts at the time were concerned that juries would award to plaintiffs sums that had the potential to stifle “newly developing industry.” 5 Early American courts were [432 Md. 687]also concerned that they should not adopt a policy in which “ courts ... assist a wrongdoer who suffered an injury as a result of his own wrongdoing.” Harrison, 295 Md. at 450, 456 A.2d at...

To continue reading

Request your trial
57 practice notes
  • Layani v. Ouazana, Civil Action No. ELH-20-420
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court (Maryland)
    • March 3, 2021
    ...(citing Union Mem'l Hosp. v. Dorsey, 125 Md. App. 275, 281, 724 A.2d 1272, 1275 (1999)); see also Coleman v. Soccer Ass'n of Columbia, 432 Md. 679, 690, 69 A.3d 1149, 1155 (2013); Kassama v. Magat, 136 Md. App. 637, 657 767 A.2d 348, 359 (2001), aff'd, 368 Md. 113, 792 A.2d 1102 (2002). 13.......
  • State v. Jones, No. 52
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • August 28, 2019
    ...the circumstances of modern life, a vestige of the past, [or is] no longer suitable to our people." Coleman v. Soccer Ass'n of Columbia, 432 Md. 679, 704, 69 A.3d 1149, 1163 (2013) (internal citations omitted). Turning to the present case, neither of the enumerated bases for breaking from p......
  • McCoy v. Biomet Orthopedics, LLC, Civil Action No. ELH-12-1436
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court (Maryland)
    • January 25, 2021
    ...contributory negligence "operates as a complete bar to recovery." Berkenfeld, 921 F.3d at 153; see Coleman v. Soccer Ass'n of Columbia, 432 Md. 679, 690, 69 A.3d 1149, 1155 (2013); Kassama v. Magat, 136 Md. App. 637, 657 767 A.2d 348, 359 (2001), aff'd, 368 Md. 113, 792 A.2d 1102 (2002). "T......
  • Whye v. Concentra Health Servs., Inc., Civil Action No. ELH-12-3432
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court (Maryland)
    • September 24, 2013
    ...of legislative intent, it may help our understanding of overall legislative history."); see also Coleman v. Soccer Ass'n of Columbia, 432 Md. 679, 693-94, 69 A.3d 1149, 1157-58 (2013) (stating that General Assembly's consistent and repeated failure to enact legislation can be "a clear indic......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
59 cases
  • Layani v. Ouazana, Civil Action No. ELH-20-420
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court (Maryland)
    • March 3, 2021
    ...(citing Union Mem'l Hosp. v. Dorsey, 125 Md. App. 275, 281, 724 A.2d 1272, 1275 (1999)); see also Coleman v. Soccer Ass'n of Columbia, 432 Md. 679, 690, 69 A.3d 1149, 1155 (2013); Kassama v. Magat, 136 Md. App. 637, 657 767 A.2d 348, 359 (2001), aff'd, 368 Md. 113, 792 A.2d 1102 (2002). 13.......
  • State v. Jones, No. 52
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • August 28, 2019
    ...the circumstances of modern life, a vestige of the past, [or is] no longer suitable to our people." Coleman v. Soccer Ass'n of Columbia, 432 Md. 679, 704, 69 A.3d 1149, 1163 (2013) (internal citations omitted). Turning to the present case, neither of the enumerated bases for breaking from p......
  • McCoy v. Biomet Orthopedics, LLC, Civil Action No. ELH-12-1436
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court (Maryland)
    • January 25, 2021
    ...contributory negligence "operates as a complete bar to recovery." Berkenfeld, 921 F.3d at 153; see Coleman v. Soccer Ass'n of Columbia, 432 Md. 679, 690, 69 A.3d 1149, 1155 (2013); Kassama v. Magat, 136 Md. App. 637, 657 767 A.2d 348, 359 (2001), aff'd, 368 Md. 113, 792 A.2d 1102 (2002). "T......
  • Whye v. Concentra Health Servs., Inc., Civil Action No. ELH-12-3432
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court (Maryland)
    • September 24, 2013
    ...of legislative intent, it may help our understanding of overall legislative history."); see also Coleman v. Soccer Ass'n of Columbia, 432 Md. 679, 693-94, 69 A.3d 1149, 1157-58 (2013) (stating that General Assembly's consistent and repeated failure to enact legislation can be "a clear indic......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT