In the Maryland Bank and Trust case, the bank based its defense on which defense?

• A. Direct defense
• B. Third party defense
• C. Comparative fault
• D. Assumption of risk

Answer: (B)

The main idea is that a defendant can try to shift responsibility to someone else who caused the harm. A third-party defense argues that another person or entity, not the bank, was responsible for the loss, so the bank’s own liability should be reduced or eliminated. In the Maryland Bank and Trust case, the bank contended that a third party caused or substantially contributed to the damage, making this the most appropriate way to defend against liability given the facts. This approach differs from a direct defense, which would focus on denying the bank’s own duty, breach, or causation; and from comparative fault, which still involves dividing blame among multiple responsible parties rather than blaming a single external actor entirely. Assumption of risk would require the plaintiff to have knowingly exposed themselves to the risk, which doesn’t fit a scenario where another party’s actions are primarily at fault.