Sail Zambezi, Ltd. v. Maryland State Highway Administration, 90 A.3d 592

Sail Zambezi, owner of a 60' sailboat, collided with the Spa Creek (Eastport) drawbridge after attempting to pass through while the drawbridge was closing; the captain did not signal the drawtender before proceeding.
Sail Zambezi sued Maryland State Highway Administration (MSHA) for negligence, alleging the drawtender failed to observe the vessel and that bridge cameras/mirrors were not maintained; MSHA pleaded contributory negligence and third‑partied the captain for indemnity.
Trial evidence included testimony about federal drawbridge regulations (33 C.F.R. Subparts A & B), the bridge’s posted schedule, and that the Spa Creek regulation mandates openings at the hour/half‑hour on certain days.
Sail Zambezi sought to admit repair bills and a spreadsheet (Exhibit 52) summarizing repair expenses; the trial court excluded the spreadsheet as not a business record and noted C.J.P. §10‑105 compliance issues for paid bills.
Jury allocated fault: Sail Zambezi 85%, MSHA 15%, but found no proven dollar damages; Sail Zambezi appealed challenging (1) inclusion of 33 C.F.R. §§117.15, .19, .21 in jury instructions and (2) exclusion of the spreadsheet/repair bills.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial court erred by instructing jury with 33 C.F.R. §§117.15, .19, .21 (general signaling rules) alongside the Spa Creek specific schedule	Spa Creek regulation (33 C.F.R. §117.571) schedules openings and omits “on signal,” so it varies from Subpart A and relieves vessels of signaling during scheduled openings	Subpart A’s signaling requirement remains applicable unless specifically superseded; §117.571 only sets opening times and does not eliminate the vessel’s duty to signal	Affirmed: Court held the Spa Creek schedule does not supersede general signaling rules; jury instruction correctly stated the law
Whether trial court erred excluding the spreadsheet (Exhibit 52) as a business‑record exception to hearsay	Spreadsheet was prepared in real time by the captain as part of ordinary expense tracking, so it qualifies as a business record; absence of MSHA challenge to source invoices means spreadsheet is trustworthy	Spreadsheet was prepared for litigation, compiled from third‑party invoices (not Sail Zambezi business records), lacked C.J.P. §10‑105 compliance and source verification, and contained hearsay within hearsay	Affirmed: Exclusion not an abuse of discretion; spreadsheet prepared for litigation and relied on inadmissible third‑party invoices, so hearsay exception did not apply

Farley v. Allstate Ins. Co., 355 Md. 34 (1999) (jury instructions need only fairly cover the law)
Ward v. Dep’t of Public Safety & Correctional Servs., 339 Md. 343 (1995) (apply statutory‑interpretation rules to regulations)
Mayor & Town Council of Oakland v. Mayor & Town Council of Mountain Lake Park, 392 Md. 301 (2006) (cardinal rules of statutory construction)
Bernadyn v. State, 390 Md. 1 (2006) (standard of review for admissibility and hearsay exclusion)
Owens‑Illinois, Inc. v. Armstrong, 326 Md. 107 (1992) (records prepared for litigation may lack circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness)
Hall v. University of Maryland Medical System Corp., 398 Md. 67 (2007) (business records exception excludes self‑serving records prepared in anticipation of litigation)
Shpigel v. White, 357 Md. 117 (1999) (need for live witness or expert when business records do not establish reasonableness of charges)
Thornton v. State, 397 Md. 704 (2007) (presumption that trial judge knows and applies the law)