S & S Oil, Inc. v. Jackson, 53 A.3d 1125

Respondent injured at a gas station undergoing renovations where floor was uneven near a soda machine; warning tape and a Watch Your Step sign were present; Respondent claimed she did not see hazards and assumed the floor was level.
Trial judge instructed on the assumption of the risk defense but refused to include a standalone verdict-sheet question addressing that defense; the verdict sheet ultimately asked only if the plaintiff was negligent or contributorily negligent.
Petitioner requested separate questions for assumption of the risk and contributory negligence; trial judge treated assumption as subsumed under contributory negligence.
Verdict form and oral instructions together allegedly misled jurors by conflating the defenses and omitting a specific assumption-of-risk question.
Trial court and Court of Special Appeals ruled there was no reversible error; the Maryland Court of Appeals reversed holding the defenses are distinct and the risk defense should have been separately submitted to the jury.
On remand, new trial ordered with proper treatment of assumption of the risk as a separate issue.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether assumption of the risk is distinct from contributory negligence.	Jackson asked for a separate verdict question on assumption of the risk.	Contributory negligence and assumption of the risk overlapped; one question sufficed.	Assumption of the risk is distinct from contributory negligence.
Whether error in the verdict sheet and instructions prevented consideration of assumption of the risk.	The verdict sheet did not allow explicit consideration of assumption of the risk.	Oral instructions adequately covered the doctrine; the sheet’s wording was acceptable.	Error occurred by removing explicit assumption-of-risk consideration from the verdict sheet.
Whether the facts supported presenting the assumption-of-risk defense to the jury.	There was evidence (warning signs, tape) that Respondent knew and confronted the risk.	Respondent claimed she did not know of the risk.	Facts supported presenting the defense to the jury.
Whether the trial court’s error prejudiced the outcome.	If the jury had considered the risk defense, liability could be negated.	Prejudice was not shown beyond speculative possibility.	The error prejudiced the outcome; reversal warranted.

Poole v. Coakley & Williams Constr., Inc., 423 Md. 91, 31 A.3d 212 (Md. 2011) (assumption of risk requires knowledge and voluntary confrontation of the risk; defenses are distinct)
Thomas v. Panco Mgmt. of Maryland, LLC, 423 Md. 387, 31 A.3d 583 (Md. 2011) (whether risk is unreasonable is for jury; knowledge standard remains key)
Collins v. Amtrak, 417 Md. 217, 9 A.3d 56 (Md. 2011) (FELA context; right to present defense instruction when defense is not barred by statute)
Schroyer v. McNeal, 323 Md. 275, 592 A.2d 1119 (Md. 1991) (distinction between assumption of risk and contributory negligence; knowledge standard)
Kruszewski v. Holz, 265 Md. 434, 290 A.2d 534 (Md. 1972) (guide on framing issues to avoid duplicative questions)