In Coleman v. Soccer Association of Columbia, No. 9 (Md. July 9, 2013), the Court of Appeals of Maryland, in a divided opinion, declined to adopt the comparative negligence standard now used in most other states, and affirmed that contributory negligence – which bars a plaintiff from recovering if his or her own negligence contributed in any way to the injury – remains the law of Maryland, as it has for the past 165 years. The court acknowledged that contributory negligence is the minority view and has been roundly criticized as “an antiquated doctrine.” Four of the five judges in the majority filed a concurring opinion stating that comparative negligence was a “more equitable,” “more socially desirable” system that they might adopt if they “were writing on a clean slate.” Nonetheless, the majority refused to do so, stating that although it had the power to change this judicially-created negligence standard, such a change implicated public policy issues that were better addressed by the legislature. The court added that this was particularly the case here, where the General Assembly had repeatedly tried but failed to pass legislation abrogating contributory negligence. Two judges filed a lengthy dissent stating that contributory negligence is a “dinosaur” that the court should render extinct “with the force of a modern asteroid strike.”