Consolidated Waste Industries, Inc. v. Standard Equipment Co., 26 A.3d 352

Consolidated Waste purchased a new Waste Hauler from Standard Equipment on June 7, 2005 for $424,647.
Approximately 20 months later, on February 16, 2007, the machine developed hydraulic/operational problems leading to a repair dispute.
Standard Equipment repaired the machine in two rounds in 2007; Consolidated Waste paid $20,434.14 for the first set of repairs.
A second round of repairs occurred around December 2007–January 2008, with total cost for that set totaling $33,623.73.
On December 31, 2009, the Waste Hauler again experienced hydraulic issues; Carter Machinery performed a complete hydraulic system clean-out, costing Consolidated Waste over $40,000.
Consolidated Waste filed suit in December 2008 seeking recovery of the second-round repair costs; the case was ultimately tried in May 2010 with a verdict for Standard Equipment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether exclusion of evidence of subsequent repairs was an abuse of discretion	Consolidated Waste argues subsequent Carter repairs are probative of standard of care.	Standard Equipment contends evidence risks prejudice and confusion; probative value is limited.	No abuse; evidence properly excluded as prejudicial.
Whether the verdict sheet proposed by Standard Equipment was proper	Questions were confusing/redundant and improperly referenced damages and causation.	The sheet appropriately separated negligence and damages; it aided juror clarity.	Use of the verdict sheet was within the trial court's discretion.

Pantazes v. State, 376 Md. 661, 831 A.2d 432 (2003) (Md. 2003) (abuse of discretion standard and harmless error guidance)
Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. v. Garrett, 343 Md. 500, 682 A.2d 1143 (1996) (Md. 1996) (standard for appellate review of trial court decisions)
Collins v. National Railroad Passenger Corp., 417 Md. 217, 9 A.3d 56 (2010) (Md. 2010) (negligence elements framing on verdict sheets)
Fry v. Carter, 375 Md. 341, 825 A.2d 1042 (2003) (Md. 2003) (unavoidable accident instruction improper when real defense exists)
General v. State, 367 Md. 475, 789 A.2d 102 (2002) (Md. 2002) (entitlement to instruction on any legally supported defense)
Sims v. State, 319 Md. 540, 573 A.2d 1317 (1990) (Md. 1990) (defense instruction appropriateness)
Johnson v. State, 332 Md. 456, 632 A.2d 152 (1993) (Md. 1993) (probative value and prejudice balancing standard)
Eichel v. New York Cent. R. Co., 375 U.S. 253, 84 S. Ct. 254 (1963) (Sup. Ct. 1963) (framework for probative value versus prejudice)
Norfolk S. Ry. Corp. v. Henry Tiller, 179 Md. App. 318, 944 A.2d 1272 (2008) (Md. App. 2008) (evidence prejudice analysis in probative value balancing)
Crane v. Dunn, 382 Md. 83, 854 A.2d 1180 (2004) (Md. 2004) (harmless error/prejudice consideration on appeal)