In a Maryland medical malpractice case filed in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, J.B. (the “Child”), a minor, by and through his mother (the “Mother”), alleged that Harbor Hospital, Inc. (the “Hospital”) was negligent in the post-delivery care provided to him, which resulted in his suffering from cerebral palsy. After a two-week trial, the jury determined that the Hospital had breached its standard of care and that this breach caused the Child’s injury. The jury rendered a verdict of $34,770,292.89 against the Hospital. The Hospital appealed.
The Appellate Court of Maryland held in its October 2, 2025 unpublished Opinion that the circuit court erred by precluding evidence regarding the Mother’s prenatal conduct based on Courts & Judicial Proceedings § 10-910.
Courts & Judicial Proceedings § 10-910
Courts & Judicial Proceedings § 10-910 provides, “In an action on behalf of an infant to recover for death, personal injury, or property damage the negligence of the parent or custodian of the infant may not be imputed to the infant.”
The Hospital argued on appeal that the circuit court erred in granting the Child’s motion in limine to exclude evidence of the Mother’s prenatal conduct while pregnant under CJP §10-910. The Hospital’s theory was that it was not negligent at all. It was prepared to call various experts to testify that the Mother’s prenatal conduct, including leaving Johns Hopkins Hospital against medical advice and smoking cigarettes and marijuana while pregnant, plausibly contributed to the Child’s injuries. The Hospital argued that the court denied it a fair trial because it could not present its complete causation defense or the “full story” of the Child’s injury.
The Appellate Court of Maryland stated: “We hold that the court erred in excluding evidence of Mother’s prenatal conduct under CJP § 10-910. The statute does not operate as a blanket rule of exclusion of any evidence of alleged parental negligence in a case where a child seeks to recover against a defendant. See Caroline, 269 Md. at 130. Instead, the statute prohibits the imputation of a parent’s negligence to the child to bar the child’s recovery. See BJ’s Wholesale Club, Inc., 435 Md. at 737 n.20; Richwind, 335 Md. at 681 n.8. Thus, if a defendant seeks to introduce evidence to establish a parent’s contributory negligence to bar the child’s recovery, such evidence would be irrelevant. This is because a parent’s contributory negligence cannot be imputed to their child.”
“[A] parent’s negligence can, however, bar a child’s recovery if the parent’s negligence is an intervening and superseding cause of the child’s injuries. Thus, if a defendant seeks to introduce evidence of a parent’s alleged negligence to establish that the parent’s act or omission was an intervening and superseding act, such evidence would be relevant … The Hospital’s defense was not based on the claim that the Mother’s prenatal conduct constituted a superseding act or omission that broke the chain of causation stemming from the Hospital’s alleged negligence … the Hospital did not seek to introduce evidence of the Mother’s prenatal conduct to establish that her contributory negligence barred the Child’s recovery. Instead, the Hospital completely denied liability and sought to introduce evidence of the Mother’s prenatal conduct to undermine the Child’s evidence of causation.”
“The question becomes whether CJP § 10-910 precludes a defendant from introducing evidence of alleged non-party negligence when the plaintiff is a child and the allegedly negligent non-party is the child’s parent. We hold that the Hospital is not precluded from presenting such evidence solely because the allegedly negligent non-party happened to be the Child’s parent.”
“The Hospital’s entitlement to present evidence of the Mother’s potentially causative role in the Child’s condition immediately before birth is not a circumvention of the statute, which, in light of its legislative history, was intended to prevent actors who had negligently harmed children from escaping liability on the ground that the child’s parent was
contributorily negligent. The purpose of the Hospital’s evidence—to show that it did not cause the injury in question and that someone and/or something else did—supports a theory of alternative causation that is distinguishable from the affirmative defense of contributory negligence that would bar the claim.”
“[T]he court erred in excluding evidence of Mother’s prenatal conduct on the basis that such evidence was precluded under CJP § 10-910. Because the error permeated the trial, as we recounted in Part I.G of this opinion, we vacate the court’s judgment and remand this case for a new trial. We are careful to constrain our holding to the issue before us, that is, whether the court erred in relying on CJP § 10-910 to exclude evidence of the Mother’s prenatal conduct. The Hospital’s entitlement to present relevant evidence of a non-party’s negligence does not mean that the experts’ testimony the Hospital seeks to introduce regarding the Mother’s prenatal conduct must be admitted. Indeed, the court must function as the gatekeeper in determining the admissibility of expert testimony.”
“We hold that the circuit court erred in granting the Child’s motion in limine to exclude evidence of the Mother’s prenatal conduct based on CJP § 10-910. Accordingly, we vacate the court’s judgment and remand the case for a new trial consistent with this opinion. On remand, the court will have the discretion to determine whether the expert
testimony the Hospital seeks to present is admissible. Such discretion will include, but is not limited to, permitting additional briefing and hearing on the matter.”
Source Harbor Hospital, Inc. v. J.B., No. 1461 September Term, 2021.
If you or a loved one may have been injured (or worse) as a result of medical malpractice in Maryland, you should promptly find the best Maryland medical malpractice lawyer for you, who may investigate your medical malpractice claim for you and represent you or your loved one in a Maryland medical malpractice case, if appropriate.
Click here to visit our website or call us toll-free at 800-295-3959 to find experienced Maryland medical malpractice attorneys who may assist you.
Turn to us when you don’t know where to turn.