Jamie Meyers v. Michael Lamer
743 F.3d 908
4th Cir.2014Background
- Meyers worked in a boom bucket above an open traffic lane to replace traffic signals, with Hatfield acting as lookout on the ground.
- The worksite was set with Meyers’s truck closer to the intersection and Hatfield’s truck behind it; warning signs and cones were placed along Route 5, but the northbound travel lane remained open.
- Lamer’s tractor-trailer struck Meyers’s bucket; Meyers was ejected and injured despite wearing a safety harness.
- Meyers sued Lamer and his employer in Maryland state court for negligence; the case was removed to federal district court on diversity grounds.
- Both sides moved for summary judgment; the district court granted summary judgment for the defendants, finding Meyers assumed the risk and was contributorily negligent.
- The Fourth Circuit vacated and remanded with instructions, addressing assumption of risk and contributory negligence under Maryland law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Meyers, a worker in the street, may be barred by assumption of risk | Meyers falls within Clayborne exception for street workers. | Clayborne I/IIs do not apply to Meyers; assumption applies unless exempted. | Meyers precluded from assumption defense due to worker-in-street status. |
| Whether Meyers was contributorily negligent as a matter of law | Reasonable reliance on lookout and standard precautions negate contributory negligence. | Meyers should have taken additional precautions and watched for traffic. | Not decided as a matter of law; remanded for trial due to disputed facts. |
| Whether Meyers's expert report was admissible to aid contributory-negligence analysis | Balgowan's report shows industry-standard precautions. | Report must be authenticated/sworn to be admissible at summary judgment. | Admissibility not resolved on appeal; other evidence supports dispute of material facts; remand. |
Key Cases Cited
- Clayborne I, 284 A.2d 24 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1971) (assumption of risk not applicable to workers in the street)
- Clayborne II, 291 A.2d 443 (Md. 1972) (police officer status does not disturb risk assumption analysis; contributory negligence focus)
- Schutz v. Breeback, 178 A.2d 889 (Md. 1962) (workmen on highway not bound to anticipate negligence of operators; jury often weighs reasonableness)
- Campbell v. Balt. Gas & Elec. Co., 619 A.2d 213 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1993) (assurances of safety may not relieve duty, but may be relied on in appropriate circumstances)
- Menish v. Polinger Co., 356 A.2d 233 (Md. 1976) (contributory negligence defined; ordinary care standard for self-safety)
- Harrison v. Montgomery Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 456 A.2d 894 (Md. 1983) (contributory negligence bars recovery regardless of defendant's fault magnitude)
- Coleman v. Soccer Ass’n of Columbia, 69 A.3d 1149 (Md. 2013) (Maryland reaffirmation of contributory negligence doctrine)