Maryland follows contributory negligence; even small fault will bar recovery. It can be devastating to a plaintiff’s case. Belair-Edison Contributory Negligence — What Insurance Companies Argue After a Crash

Bel Air Edison Personal Injury Law 101. Under Maryland law, contributory negligence is the single most powerful defense insurance companies use to deny Belair-Edison injury claims. If an injured person is found to have contributed to a crash in any way, even slightly, recovery may be barred entirely — even if the other driver was overwhelmingly at fault.
Negligence means doing something a reasonably careful person would not do under similar circumstances, or failing to do something a reasonably careful person would have done. In Belair-Edison cases, carriers routinely try to re-label everyday decisions as “fault”: crossing against a light, stepping off a curb too soon, hesitating at a merge, changing lanes late, or “not seeing what you should have seen.”
Because Belair-Edison sits along heavy corridor traffic — including Belair Road, Harford Road, and the commercial and commuter movement around Erdman Avenue — adjusters often build a contributory negligence story around common patterns: stop-and-go braking, lane positioning near buses, turning movements near shopping areas, and pedestrian activity near park edges. The goal is simple: create “any fault” and the claim can be defeated.
Maryland’s contributory negligence doctrine is harsh and unforgiving. That is why insurance companies lean on it so heavily. A full explanation of how this doctrine works — and how carriers weaponize it — is explained here:
https://www.thekirklawfirm.com/contributory-negligence-how-insurance-companies-defeat-your-baltimore-personal-injury-claim/
In car accident cases specifically, the defense tries to convert ordinary Belair-Edison traffic behavior into a fault defense: “following too closely,” “stopping suddenly,” “failing to yield,” or “failing to maintain a proper lookout.” How contributory negligence is used in vehicle cases is explained here:
https://www.thekirklawfirm.com/contributory-negligence-can-i-recover-if-i-cause-or-contribute-to-auto-accident/
Insurance companies also blur the line between contributory negligence and assumption of the risk. They may argue that an injured person knowingly exposed themselves to danger — for example, choosing to cross where traffic was obvious, entering a risky gap in congestion, or walking on a surface they claim was hazardous. While these doctrines are distinct under Maryland law, insurers often merge them to deny claims. The difference is explained here:
https://www.thekirklawfirm.com/is-contributory-negligence-differently-from-assumption-of-the-risk-in-a-baltimore-personal-injury-case/
Special rules apply to children. Minors are not held to the same standard of care as adults; instead, their conduct is judged against what a reasonably careful child of similar age, intelligence, and experience would have done. Despite this, insurers still attempt to raise contributory negligence defenses whenever possible.
In Belair-Edison injury cases, contributory negligence is rarely an afterthought. It is often the central battlefield — shaped by how early facts are gathered, how the timeline is framed, and whether the insurer can point to any decision or moment of inattention and call it “fault.”

Carriers often equate visible damage with injury severity—an assumption medicine does not support.

Bel Air Edison Personal Injury Law 101. It should come as no surprise that the industrious claims adjuster is always going to look for inconsistencies in the claim of damage and injury. Of course any inconsistency can be exploited. You should avoid them.

Yes. Early records establish baseline symptoms before defense narratives form. In keeping with the general guidance above, many insurance companies will adopt the position, through the skilled lawyers they hired a represent them, at trial, that a person claiming injury, who did not get emergency treatment or at the very least a prompt medical evaluation, is a fact narrative inconsistent with a person being seriously hurt.

Reports help but are not determinative; evidence timing often matters more. Police reports especially in Baltimore city which serves the Bel Air Edison neighborhood, are frequently incomplete or non-existent.

For many, common sense would dictate that a rear-end collision is a “no-brainer” the person striking from the rear is most certainly at fault. But, No. Insurers frequently contest speed, stopping distance, and sudden braking. Moreover , Baltimore City courts have been known to see through the evidence to find out what really happened, and have placed fault on the driver in front in specific circumstances.

Statements are taken to lock in positions early; timing and scope matter.

Bel Air Edison Personal Injury Law 101. It should come as no surprise that the industrious claims adjuster is always going to look for inconsistencies in the claim of damage and injury. Of course any inconsistency can be exploited. You should avoid them. If your narrative is locked in and consistent throughout the recorded statement can help your case. If the statement is inconsistent or not consistent with other facts or other narratives provided by other witnesses- the opposite is often true.

It’s not at all unheard of for a driver to admit fault responsibility or at least be apologetic at the scene, but then later change their story.

Bel Air Edison Personal Injury Law 101. It should come as no surprise that the industrious claims adjuster is always going to look for inconsistencies in the claim of damage and injury. Of course any inconsistency can be exploited. You should avoid them. I’ve often wondered what the genesis of that change is. Did the driver have a chance to reconstruct the accident, review the rules of the road, thoroughly reconnoiter the intersection, and simply change their mind about their initial fault analysis? Or did they talk to the claims adjuster for their insurance company? Denials are common once carriers assess exposure.