Absolon v. Dollahite

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that a pedestrian's breach of traffic safety rules did not constitute per se contributory negligence, but was evidence for the jury to consider, in an action for injuries caused when the pedestrian was struck by a vehicle
• stating that it is a “long established general rule in Maryland that the violation of a statutory duty is only evidence of negligence, but does not establish negligence per se ” (internal citations omitted)
• utilizing negligence per se provides evidence of negligence but does not establish negligence “as a matter of law”
• “[T]he settled rule in Maryland is that a statutory violation is evidence of negligence. It does not constitute negligence per se, unless a statute expressly makes it so.”
• “[T]he settled rule in Maryland is that a statutory violation is evidence of negligence. It does not constitute negligence per se, unless a statute expressly makes it so.”
• “[T]he settled rule in Maryland is that a statutory violation is evidence of negligence. It does not constitute negligence per se, unless a statute expressly makes it so.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).