Saiontz & Kirk $5 Million Pedestrian Settlement Highlights Why Vulnerable Road Users in Maryland Need Stronger Legal Protections
We are proud to announce that Saiontz & Kirk attorneys Francis Lanasa and Katelyn Wallace recently secured a $5 million settlement for a client, who suffered catastrophic injuries in a Maryland pedestrian accident.
The settlement came after hard-fought litigation and repeated attempts by the defendant to avoid responsibility, by arguing that our client was barred from obtaining any compensation at all under Maryland contributory negligence law. However, Fran and Katelyn were able to aggressively and strategically pursue the claim, making it clear that these liability defenses would fail at trial.
This case and settlement highlight why the Maryland legislature needs to adopt changes to the state’s contributory negligence laws for vulnerable road users, such as pedestrians and cyclists, which our law firm has been advocating for years.
Defendants Initially Refused to Offer Any Compensation
This accident occurred as our client was walking along a sidewalk, and a commercial truck made a tight right turn while exiting a driveway. After the truck stopped, our client proceeded across the driveway, but the driver suddenly moved forward again, without properly checking for a pedestrian and ran over both of her legs. One leg ultimately had to be amputated, while the other was left severely mangled.
The defendants relied on disputed witness accounts to argue that our client contributed to her own injuries by walking into the truck and failing to pay attention while walking down the sidewalk. Based on those allegations, they argued that she was barred from receiving any financial compensation for her catastrophic injuries under Maryland’s contributory negligence law.
Before the lawsuit was filed, the defendants and their insurance carriers made no settlement offer. They continued to deny liability after the lengthy litigation process got underway, until our lawyers were able to establish that a jury would reject these arguments and find that the driver was the only negligent party.
The case demonstrates why an insurance company’s initial denial should not be treated as the final word. Pedestrian accident claims often involve conflicting witness accounts and sharply disputed questions about visibility, right-of-way and driver attention, requiring attorneys prepared to develop the evidence and continue litigating, even when the defense refuses to accept responsibility.
It also highlights how insurance companies in Maryland are able to abuse this state’s contributory negligence laws by forcing severely injured parties through a lengthy litigation process.
Documenting the Full Value of Catastrophic Injuries
Establishing liability was only one part of the case. Fran and Katelyn also had to document the full financial impact of injuries that will affect the client for the rest of her life.
Maryland law limits recovery for noneconomic damages such as pain, suffering and loss of enjoyment of life. However, the economic damages associated with an amputation, severe disability to the remaining leg and lifelong medical needs may continue for decades.
With more than three decades of experience as a Maryland personal injury lawyer, Francis Lanasa developed a detailed economic damages claim, including a life care plan addressing future medical treatment, rehabilitation, prosthetic care, assistance and other long-term needs. That work demonstrated the true value of the client’s losses and helped support the $5 million settlement reached during a mediation process.
Francis Lanasa, Esq.
“When handling a catastrophic injury case, an attorney must understand the full value of the client’s losses and know how to leverage every available avenue of recovery to maximize the compensation they receive”
Maryland Law Can Place Injured Pedestrians at a Severe Disadvantage
The defendants’ refusal to accept responsibility also reflects a broader challenge facing pedestrians, cyclists and other vulnerable road users in Maryland. The state still follows contributory negligence, a doctrine often called the “1% rule” because an injured person may be denied all compensation if the defense proves that the person contributed to the accident in any legally significant way.
Unlike comparative negligence systems, which reduce compensation according to each person’s share of fault, Maryland’s rule can completely bar recovery even when a driver bears most of the responsibility. In pedestrian accident cases, insurers may rely on allegations that the injured person failed to use a crosswalk, entered the roadway too quickly, wore dark clothing or did not maintain a proper lookout.
Those arguments can turn a relatively small dispute over a pedestrian’s conduct into a complete defense to the claim. As a result, seriously injured people may be forced into prolonged litigation simply to establish that they are entitled to any compensation at all.
Maryland lawmakers have considered narrowing that rule for vulnerable road users. In 2025, House Bill 594 proposed allowing pedestrians, cyclists and certain other roadway users to recover reduced compensation when they were partially at fault, rather than automatically losing the entire claim. The bill did not advance.
A similar proposal returned in 2026 as House Bill 466. It was referred for further study but did not become law, leaving Maryland’s contributory negligence rule unchanged.
That legal backdrop helps explain why this case required such protracted litigation. The defendants relied on Maryland law to deny liability and made no settlement offer before the lawsuit was filed. Saiontz & Kirk attorneys Francis Lanasa and Katelyn Wallace continued developing the evidence and challenging those defenses, forcing the defendant to pay the financial compensation our client was entitled to receive.
Katelyn M. Wallace, ESQ.
“Through careful witness examination, a detailed reconstruction of the scene and a methodical review of the evidence, we were able to cut through the disputed accounts and build a compelling case for liability.”
Maryland Residents Can Push for Negligence Law Revisions
Saiontz & Kirk has previously discussed the legal challenges facing vulnerable road users in Maryland, including the state’s contributory negligence doctrine, the Boulevard Rule and the need for stronger protections for people walking and biking.
Those issues are not abstract legal debates. They directly affect whether a severely injured pedestrian or cyclist can obtain compensation after an accident.
The failure of House Bill 594 in 2025 and the referral of House Bill 466 for further study in 2026 do not mean efforts to change Maryland’s contributory negligence rule are over. House Bill 466 may be reconsidered in a future legislative session, and Maryland residents can encourage lawmakers to support protections for pedestrians, cyclists and other vulnerable road users.
Residents can use the Maryland General Assembly’s Find My Representatives tool to identify the state senator and delegates representing their legislative district. Each legislator’s official page provides contact information that constituents can use to call, email or write their representatives.
When contacting lawmakers, residents can ask them to support comparative negligence legislation for vulnerable road users and explain why an injured pedestrian should not lose the right to compensation based on a minor allegation of fault.
Maryland Pedestrian Accident Lawyers
Pedestrian accident claims in Maryland often require a thorough investigation, especially when an insurance company attempts to blame the injured person and deny compensation under the state’s contributory negligence rule.
The Maryland pedestrian accident lawyers at Saiontz & Kirk examine how the crash occurred, challenge disputed witness accounts, evaluate the driver’s conduct and identify all available sources of recovery. In catastrophic injury cases, we also document the full value of medical expenses, lost income, future care and other lifelong losses.
As this $5 million settlement shows, an insurance company’s initial refusal to pay does not determine the outcome of a claim.
No Comments • Add Your Comments