Angelos pushing to kill negligence law change

Powerful attorney fears one change could lead to another that would hurt his bottom line

A holdover from English common law, contributory negligence is considered one of Maryland’s pro-business policies. It prevents a plaintiff from collecting damages if they are in any way at fault.

Under comparative fault, damages are awarded proportionate to the plaintiff’s fault. Advocates say this system is much more fair.

Several lawmakers confirmed that Angelos has personally urged them to give up what would normally be considered a lawyer-friendly effort.

‘‘He’s got his own agenda, and you have to admit, Angelos wields a considerable amount of power in this state,” said Del. Luiz R.S. Simmons, the bill’s chief architect in the House. ‘‘When he started speaking against the bill, that was the death knell.”

Angelos’ opposition lies not in the current bill, but in a possible amendment that would further alter Maryland’s legal system. If the bill is passed out of committee, several lawmakers expect an amendment that would tack on joint-and-several liability.

Currently, all defendants, regardless of their individual share of the liability, are responsible for the total amount of a jury award to a successful plaintiff. A separate court action would decide how much each defendant pays.

If joint-and-several liability passes, juries not only would award damages, but also determine the percentage of the damages each defendant pays. The result could make it tougher for plaintiffs to collect. For example, one defendant — say, a big corporation burdened by lawsuits — might be bankrupt and unable to pay damages, leaving a victim in the lurch.

‘‘That is something that would hurt greatly the clients of his firm. It’s something he’s always been against,” said Gerard E. Evans, Angelos’ lobbyist in Annapolis. ‘‘... Right now, it’s a fairly just system.”

Calls to Angelos’ Baltimore office were not returned.

Some states have adopted ‘‘relaxed joint-and-several” liability in which a defendant needs to be at least 50 percent at fault to pay damages. Theoretically, under that standard, Simmons said, each of three defendants could be found one-third liable for an injury, meaning the plaintiff would receive nothing.

Even if the pressure from Angelos helps to kill the bill, the Senate sponsor supports Angelos’ position on joint-and-several liability.

Passing both hand-in-hand would be one step forward and two steps back, said Sen. Michael G. Lenett (D-Dist. 19) of Silver Spring. ‘‘It’s more important to compensate victims than to prevent a wrongdoer from paying more than their proportionate share,” he said. ‘‘We should not change that.”

A number of lawmakers already agree that the state should not tinker with the long-rooted legal system at all.

‘‘I think the present structure of contributory negligence and the [lack] of joint-and-several liability functions adequately,” said Del. Kevin Kelly (D-Dist. 1B) of Cumberland, a lawyer who sits on the House Judiciary Committee.

House Judiciary Vice Chairman Samuel I. ‘‘Sandy” Rosenberg (D-Dist. 41) of Baltimore confirmed that Angelos contacted him, but declined to elaborate on their discussion.

The bill has a greater chance of moving forward this year, observers say, because trial lawyers backing the measure are emboldened by Democratic victories in November. As of Thursday, neither the Senate Judicial Proceedings nor the House Judiciary committees has voted on the bill.

‘‘We just keep working every day as if we’re behind,” Evans said.

But Simmons (D-Dist. 17) of Rockville acknowledged that Angelos’ involvement has muddied the bill’s fate.

‘‘We’re caught in a vise,” he said in reference to pressure from Angelos and the business community, who believe a change to comparative fault would be disastrous for the state.

The Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee on Tuesday heard testimony from a handful of supporters who pressed the basic fairness of comparative fault. They were countered by about 30 opponents who claim a switch would mean litigation costs in Maryland, already among the highest in the nation, would soar.

One proponent, Robert Campbell of Westminster, won a lawsuit against Baltimore Gas & Electric. He was shocked by one of its wires and suffered injuries that prevented his return to work.

Although the jury sided with Campbell, the judge ruled that he was at least partially at fault, meaning he could not recover damages under the contributory negligence standard. If Maryland used comparative fault and Campbell was 10 percent to blame for his injury, BGE would pay 90 percent of the jury’s award.

‘‘I didn’t get anything except a bill to fix their wires,” Campbell told the committee.