We can all agree that no one should ever offer to pay someone to lie down in front of a train. Remarkably, that is precisely what New York City taxpayers were forced to do a few years ago.

In 2002, The New York Times reported on a $14.1 million jury verdict in favor of a woman who had been hit by a subway train. This may sound reasonable until you learn that she was attempting to commit suicide by lying on the subway tracks. This woman clearly contributed to her own harm, but a New York court found that the city was also partly to blame for her injuries. New York’s legal system uses a doctrine known as “comparative negligence,” and as a result of this legal standard, the taxpayers of that state were forced to foot the bill to make this woman and her lawyer rich.

Under Maryland’s current standard of contributory negligence, which is also the standard in Virginia and the District of Columbia, Maryland taxpayers would not bear the financial burden for this woman’s behavior. If comparative negligence were adopted, Maryland citizens would likely be paying the price of a multitude of cases like this one.

Once again in Maryland—they have tried and failed many times—personal injury lawyers are attempting to pass a law that is bad for consumers and taxpayers. Moreover, the proposed law would increase lawsuits and throw aside 150 years of common law tradition and common sense in the Free State.

House Bill 110 and it’s companion bill SB 267 have been proposed in the General Assembly to repeal the state’s contributory negligence standard and replace it with a system like New York’s, a system that would abandon the principle of personal responsibility and make it easier for personal injury lawyers to sue Maryland taxpayers and businesses.

For the last century and a half, Maryland has operated by the principle which says that when both parties are negligent, they should be barred from recovering damages from each other. It is a concept steeped in common sense as well as personal responsibility, which probably explains its longevity. It runs in the face of the ever creeping standard in this country that says, “If I was hurt, it must be the fault of someone else, and . . . wouldn’t it be nice to get rich and buy a watercraft?” Personal injury lawyers who live off of fat court awards want to allow individuals to file lawsuits and recover damages even if their own negligence contributed to their harm.

State Treasurer Nancy Kopp recently supplied testimony to the House of Delegates Judiciary Committee, which highlighted the problems that would result from this legislation. She concluded that the result would be “an increase in the number of claim filings against the State” and an “increase in litigation and the expenses associated with jury trials and apportionment of damages in personal injury cases.”

The proponents of this legislation are not the ordinary citizens of Maryland; they are personal injury lawyers looking to make a change in our civil justice system that would make them rich but affect us all. If a comparative negligence standard is adopted, prices for consumer goods and services will increase because businesses will be forced to pass the costs of defending more lawsuits on to consumers. Increased exposure to lawsuits would especially impact small business owners, as oftentimes one lawsuit is enough to force a small business to close its doors. And the long term effects of this law on our economy could be devastating.

Proponents of comparative negligence legislation argue that 46 other states have adopted this change, so why not Maryland? Personal injury lawyers have been extremely successful in changing laws in other states so that they can file more lawsuits and make more money, but it’s Maryland taxpayers, consumers, small businesses and employers who would pay the price for this legislation. Just ask the taxpayers of New York, whose hard-earned money went to the woman on the subway tracks.

Todd D. Lamb is the executive director of Maryland Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse, and can be reached at mdcala@hotmail.com