Lawrence Hardesty is an over-the-road tractor-trailer truck driver who picked up a load of stadium seating equipment for the NFL stadium under construction in Baltimore. The equipment was packaged in large corrugated cardboard boxes weighing several hundred pounds. The shipper, American Seating Co., loaded the trailer while Hardesty remained in the cab of his truck doing "paperwork" and napping. Considerable open space existed between the boxes and the rear door of the trailer. The evidence showed that Hardesty failed to properly examine the load bars used to secure the boxes from movement during transit. When Hardesty arrived at the Baltimore destination, he opened the rear trailer door and boxes at the end of the trailer fell out and injured him. Hardesty brought a personal injury negligence action against the shipper. American Seating Co. responded that Hardesty was contributorily negligent, thus barring his negligence claim.

Judicial Opinion DAVIS, D. J.... Under Maryland tort law, a negligence claim requires a showing of the following four elements: "

(1)a duty owed to the plaintiff by the defendant (2)a breach of that duty by the defendant (3)a legally cognizable causal relationship between the breach of duty and the harm suffered (4)damages suffered by the plaintiff " Although the question "whether there is adequate proof of the required elements needed to succeed in a negligence action is [generally] a question of fact to be determined by the fact finder,... the existence of a legal duty is a question of law to be decided by the court." Contributory negligence, "that degree of reasonable and ordinary care that a plaintiff fails to undertake in the face of an appreciable risk which cooperates with the defendant's negligence in bringing about the plaintiffs harm," is a complete bar to recovery....

As a matter of law, Plaintiffs claim is barred by his own contributory negligence....

1. If Maryland applied a "comparative negligence" defense, as set forth in the following section of the text, rather than contributory negligence, would a more fair or just result have been reached in this case?