## Facts

- A Baltimore Transit Company bus, driven by Gerald M. Harrison, struck and killed Roswell W. Geils, Jr., at a Baltimore street corner.
- The plaintiffs, brought in the name of the State of Maryland for the use of Geils’s surviving widow and minor children, and the administratrix of Geils’s estate, filed wrongful-death and survival claims in federal district court under diversity jurisdiction.
- At trial, multiple witnesses testified, and their accounts conflicted sharply on whether Geils exercised due care for his own safety or was contributorily negligent.
- Maryland law recognizes a presumption that a decedent exercised ordinary care, based on the ordinary human tendency to avoid danger.
- The transit company presented testimony and other proof tending to show Geils failed to exercise ordinary care.
- The trial judge instructed the jury that although a decedent is ordinarily presumed to have exercised ordinary care, “where as here” evidence had been offered suggesting a failure of ordinary care, the jurors were “not to rely upon the presumption,” but instead were to decide the question on the proof.
- The plaintiffs requested an instruction telling the jury it could consider the due-care presumption together with the other evidence; the court refused that request.
- The jury returned a general verdict for the defendants, and judgment was entered accordingly.
- The plaintiffs appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

## Issues

1. In a diversity case applying Maryland law, did the district court err by instructing the jury that it could not rely on the presumption that the decedent exercised due care once the defendants introduced conflicting evidence of contributory negligence?

## Decision

- The Fourth Circuit reversed the judgment for the defendants and remanded for a new trial.
- The court held that state law governs the effect of the due-care presumption in this diversity case because the treatment of the presumption can affect the parties’ rights and no Federal Rule displaced Maryland’s approach.
- The court held the instruction telling the jury it was “not to rely upon the presumption” was erroneous under Maryland law, and the refusal to give the requested instruction allowing consideration of the presumption with the rest of the evidence required reversal.

## Legal Principles

- In diversity cases, federal courts apply the forum state’s rule on the effect of presumptions when that rule may affect the outcome and no federal provision requires a different rule.
- Under Maryland law, the presumption that a decedent exercised ordinary care does not automatically disappear merely because the opposing party offers evidence to the contrary; the presumption may remain for the jury to weigh along with the other evidence.
- A jury instruction that removes the due-care presumption from consideration solely because conflicting evidence was introduced is improper under Maryland law and can require a new trial when the issue of contributory negligence is disputed.

## Conclusion

Because Maryland law allows the jury to consider the decedent’s presumption of due care together with conflicting testimony about how the accident occurred, the district court’s instruction directing jurors not to rely on that presumption misapplied Maryland’s rule on presumptions; the Fourth Circuit therefore reversed the defense verdict and ordered a new trial.


State of Maryland v. Baltimore Transit Co., 329 F.2d 738 (1964)