17
definition of gross negligence and the evidence required to plead and
to prove it.
Randolph Stuart Sergent, Gross, Reckless, Wanton, And Indifferent: Gross Negligence In
Maryland Civil Law, 30 Balt. L. Rev. 1, 1-2 (2000).
Here, most of those distinctions do not apply. But the Court bears an affirmative
obligation “to prevent factually unsupported claims and defenses from proceeding to trial.”
Bouchat v. Baltimore Ravens Football Club, Inc., 346 F.3d 514, 526 (4th Cir. 2003) (citation and
internal quotation marks omitted). Further, as discussed below, Ms. Weeks’ contributory
negligence defense survives summary judgment. Because under Maryland law proof of gross
negligence may defeat a showing of contributory negligence, id.; see also Liscombe, 303 Md. at
636–37, 495 A.2d at 847 (1985) (assuming without deciding that contributory negligence is “not
a defense in tort cases in which gross negligence has been shown”), whether Ms. Weeks is
entitled to judgment as a matter of law on Ms. Iocabeti’s gross negligence claim (Count II)
remains a live issue.
5
5
Whether contributory negligence is a complete defense to gross negligence claims in Maryland
is unclear. See, e.g., Ramos v. S. Md. Elec. Co-op., Inc., 996 F.2d 52, 54–55 (4th Cir. 1993)
(“Maryland never has held that contributory negligence does not bar gross negligence. To the
contrary, many cases have suggested just the opposite in dicta.”); Est. of Saylor v. Regal
Cinemas, Inc., No. 13-cv-3089 WMN, 2016 WL 4721254, at *14 n.10 (D. Md. Sept. 9, 2016)
(“[T]he question as to whether contributory negligence can be a bar to a gross negligence claim
is an unsettled question under Maryland law.”), aff’d sub nom. Est. of Saylor v. Rochford, 698 F.
App’x 72 (4th Cir. 2017); Rockwell v. Rawlins, No. 13-cv-3049-RDB, 2014 WL 5426716, at *5
(D. Md. Oct. 23, 2014) (“[T]here is no definitive Maryland case law explaining the relationship
between gross negligence and contributory negligence, and it appears that the United States
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has determined that the Maryland would reject the
Restatement’s rule.”); Est. of Grillo by Grillo v. Thompson, No. 21-cv-3132-GLR, 2022 WL
3027859, at *7 (D. Md. Aug. 1, 2022) (“[T]he Court need not consider whether [the defendant]
was grossly negligent, because even if Plaintiffs were able to establish such gross negligence, it
would not obviate [the decedent’s] own contributory negligence under Maryland law.”). But
here, the Court need not, and does not, decide whether gross negligence in fact could defeat a
contributory negligence defense because, regardless, Plaintiff has not come forward with
evidence from which a reasonable jury could find gross negligence.
Case 1:23-cv-01758-ABA Document 31 Filed 05/15/24 Page 17 of 22