Seaborne-Worsley v. Mintiens

Court of Appeals of Maryland · 2018 · Torts

183 A.3d 141 (2018)

Updated July 23, 2026

Tortsnegligencecontributory negligenceimputed negligenceautomobile accidentsowner-passengerpermissive drivervicarious liability

Facts

Ms. Worsley was seated in the front passenger seat of a sedan she testified was her car and of which she was treated as sole owner, while her husband drove them to a restaurant. He stopped the car perpendicular to handicapped spaces and left it in a travel lane while he went inside, leaving Ms. Worsley alone in the car. Mr. Mintiens then backed his truck out of a parking space and struck the passenger-side rear door of Ms. Worsley's car. The trial court found the husband negligent in where he parked and imputed that negligence to Ms. Worsley as owner-passenger, barring her claim against Mr. Mintiens under contributory negligence.

Issue

May the negligence of a permissive driver be imputed to an owner-passenger so as to make the owner-passenger contributorily negligent and bar her recovery against a negligent third party? More specifically, does the doctrine of imputed negligence apply to an innocent owner-passenger's claim in these circumstances?

Rule

The doctrine of imputed negligence does not apply to deem an owner-passenger contributorily negligent based solely on the negligence of a permissive driver of the owner-passenger's vehicle and thereby bar the owner-passenger from recovering from a negligent third party. The court no longer recognizes a presumption that an injured owner-passenger had operational control over the permissive driver for purposes of imputed contributory negligence.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Annapolis, Dana Morales rode in the passenger seat of a sedan she owned while her cousin, Leo Barton, drove with permission. Leo negligently stopped the car partly in a bike lane, and moments later Nora Kemp negligently drifted her SUV into the sedan, injuring Dana. Dana sues Nora, who argues that Leo's negligence is automatically imputed to Dana because Dana owned the car and was present in it.

How should the court rule on Nora's contributory-negligence defense?

Explanation. The majority held that an owner-passenger may not be deemed contributorily negligent solely by imputing the negligence of a permissive driver to the owner-passenger in a suit against a negligent third party. The court abandoned the presumption that the injured owner-passenger had operational control over the permissive driver for this purpose. Dana's claim may still be defeated only by her own contributory negligence, not by automatic attribution of Leo's negligence.