## Facts

- An on-duty Metropolitan Police Department detective, David Pigford, was serving subpoenas in Washington, D.C., then drove into Prince George’s County, Maryland in an unmarked police vehicle.
- In Maryland, Pigford saw Michael Ramseur and another man chasing and striking Dana Harris, who ran into traffic and begged for help.
- Harris ran to Pigford’s car; when Pigford tried to exit, one assailant swung a club at him, initially preventing him from getting out.
- Pigford eventually exited and drew his service weapon; during his intervention, he shot Ramseur, who later died.
- Shirley Coleman, as personal representative of Ramseur’s estate, sued the District of Columbia on respondeat superior theories for assault and battery and negligence.

## Issues

1. Under the District’s governmental-interests choice-of-law approach, whether District of Columbia or Maryland law governs the availability of contributory negligence and assumption of risk as defenses to the negligence claim.
2. Whether the trial court erred by refusing to instruct the jury on contributory negligence and assumption of risk based on its application of District of Columbia law.

## Decision

- The court held that Maryland law governs the availability of contributory negligence and assumption of risk in this negligence action.
- It reversed the negligence judgment against the District and remanded for a new trial on the negligence claim with proper Maryland-law instructions on those defenses.
- The court treated the choice-of-law dispute as issue-specific, focusing on defenses rather than general standards governing police use of force.

## Legal Principles

- The District of Columbia applies a governmental-interests analysis in tort conflicts questions, examining the policies behind competing rules and which jurisdiction’s interests would be more advanced by applying its law to the specific issue.
- Choice of law may be determined issue-by-issue; the controlling law for affirmative defenses can differ from the law relevant to other aspects of a tort claim.
- Where an injury occurs in another state and involves that state’s residents, that state has a strong interest in applying its tort-loss-allocation rules, including contributory negligence and assumption of risk.
- A forum’s interest in regulating its governmental employees does not automatically displace a sister state’s interest in applying its defenses for conduct and injury within its borders.
- If a trial court’s choice-of-law ruling eliminates legally available complete defenses and prevents related jury instructions, the error is prejudicial and requires reversal and a new trial.

## Conclusion

The court concluded that Maryland’s interest in applying its negligence defenses to an incident occurring in Maryland between Maryland residents outweighed the District’s interest in applying its own limits on defenses in excessive-force-related negligence cases, requiring reversal and a new trial with Maryland-law instructions on contributory negligence and assumption of risk.


District of Columbia v. Coleman, 667 A.2d 811 (D.C. 1995)