The issue on appeal in the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland was whether Cecil County owed the Plaintiff a duty to remove (or require others to remove) the utility pole because it was unreasonably dangerous. The court found that Cecil County did not owe the Plaintiff a duty of care to remove or require others to remove the utility pole.

In establishing whether a legal duty exists, courts first apply a foreseeability of harm test; however, this is not the only test to be utilized because there is a mix of public policy considerations that have to be weighed before imposing a duty. The court determined that the Plaintiff striking the utility pole was not legally foreseeable. Specifically, Nottingham Road is flat and straight at the accident site and there were no dangers in the roadway where the accident occurred. More importantly, the pole had been at the same location for decades; and there had never been a reported accident of anyone striking the utility pole during a period of over 40 years. Essentially, even if the utility pole constituted a danger, it did not constitute a danger to motorists lawfully using the highway because the pole did not exist on the highway. For all of these reasons, the court found that Cecil County did not have a duty to anticipate that a motorist could be endangered by the placement of the utility pole and that the utility pole did not constitute a danger to motorists lawfully traveling on Nottingham Road. In fact, the court stated, the only danger to the Plaintiff was caused by the Defendant driver who forced him into the utility pole.

The Court of Special Appeals also heavily relied upon the public policy considerations that would come about if liability were imposed against Cecil County. Looking at such public policy considerations the court found that, as a matter of public policy, a duty should not be imposed on state or local governments to make sure that utilities set their poles back far enough from the paved roadway so that if a vehicle travels off of the roadway, it will not strike the poles. The court considered things like the administration of such a policy, the extent of the burden on the state or local government and its capacity to bear that burden, the benefit or detriment to society, the desire to prevent future injuries, and any moral blame involved. The court found that if it were to impose liability against Cecil County in this case, then the same general principle that would apply to utility poles might also apply to an infinite variety of other roadside conditions so that a duty would be imposed on state and local governments to make a massive engineering inspection of all of their roadside conditions. This, the court found, would be bad public policy.

This case essentially creates a notice provision (similar to slip-and-fall cases) for state and local governments in which drivers strike utility poles and/or other roadside conditions on county and state roads. The law in Maryland is that local and state governments may reasonably assume that utility poles and other roadside conditions that remain standing for a significant period of time without serious incidences are safe; therefore, no legal duty is owed to injured drivers by the governments to remove "potentially" dangerous conditions. However, if a particular utility pole or roadside condition has been involved in frequent accidents or in any accident that is not irregular and indicates a likelihood of future accidents, then a jury question is created as to whether the utility pole was unreasonably positioned. The court concluded by stating that "Any broader imposition of a duty would create too great a financial burden on local governments."