Dartmouth College recently settled a lawsuit with regarding a student who was injured in a skiing accident that occurred while she was taking a skiing class. Apparently, the student skied into a tree during class. She was not wearing a helmet and was just a beginner. The student remained in a coma for 6 months before dying. This was a confidential settlement. Although there was probably an element of assumption of the risk in this case, the fact that the instructor did not have a beginning student wearing a helmet probably is what caused the defendant to agree to a settlement. Maryland Personal Injury Lawyer

In one of the largest verdicts in Arizona legal history, a family was awarded $ 40 million against a drunk driver. The defendant was a woman who had been drinking heavily at a local restuarant before getting behind the wheel of the car. The jury not only found the driver responsible, but it also found the restaurant liable for continuing to serve the driver alcohol as well as the City responsible for not making repairs to the roadway in a timely manner.This result would be unlikely in Maryland because of the statutory cap on damages. Moreover, Maryland does not recognize a claim against a bar for serving alcohol to someone subsequently involved in an accident except in very unusual circumstances. Maryland does not even allow punitive damages against a drink driver unless the plaintiff can prove almost an intentional act or malice towards the injured party. Because of the cap on pain and suffering damages in Maryland, it becomes important for the plaintiff to prove economic damages as well such as future medical care and future lost wages.   Drunk driver kills another driver

tractor trailer accidentA jury in California recently awarded a girl damages in the amount of $24.3 million. She was struck by an 18-wheeler six. Her father was the driver of the vehicle. He had been hired by a company to drive the vehicle. The girl was caught between the rear wheels of the vehicle and had multiple serious crush type injuries requiring many surgeries in the past as well as many projected surgeries.  Under Maryland law there is a cap on what is called non economic damages-what most people think as pain and suffering. However, in a case like this in Maryland, the significant amount of damages would be what is called economic damages. These would include, but not be limited to, the cost of future surgeries, rehabilitation, lost income reduced to present value, modifications to home, wheel chairs, handicap vehicles and such other items the injured party would need for the rest of his or her life.

A Georgia jury has awarded $15 million to a family who was hit by a drunken driver and whose daughter suffered severe brain damage from the accident  Allegedly, a drunken driver ran a red light and crashed into the plaintiff's vehicle. One of the passengers was thrown into the back seat causing severe head injury and dislocating it from the spine. Under Maryland law there would be a limit on what is known as non economic loss such as pain and suffering. This is a good example why the law in Maryland can be so unfair to seriously injured plaintiffs. Maryland Auto Accident Lawyer

If a person has no reasonable alternative, he is not expected to not use his own property just because he knows of a dangerous condition. Look at Roundtree v. Lerner Development Co., 52 Md. App. 281 (1982). Assumption of the risk will not apply if there is no reasonable alternative. Prosser on Torts suggests that if there is really only one effective choice it is not a choice at all so there is no voluntary assumption of the risk. Another example is where a tenant is injured because of a defective toilet seat, there is no reasonable alternative. See Sacks v. Pleasant, 253 Md. 40, 251 A.2d 858 (1969). Often the defense will try to say that the Plaintiff created the dangerous situation by doing something he should not have done.Maryland Slip and Fall Lawyer

There are several reported Maryland cases regarding automobile accidents on ice or snow. They include Larkins v. Balt. Transit, 249 Md. 305; Billmeyer v. State f/u/o Whiteman, 192 Md. 419; Wolfe v. State f/u/o Brown, 173 Md. 103; and Trusty v. Wooden, 251 Md. 294. A person must use reasonable care when driving on ice or snow. This could include reducing speed and being aware of longer stopping distances. Car Accident on Ice or snow.

Slip and Fall. The case law in Maryland suggests that in order to prevail on a slip and fall case where liquid has been left on the floor one must prove how long it had been there. It is not as simple as just saying there was liquid on the floor. There must have been sufficient time for the occupier of the property to observe and clean up the liquid. It may not be enough to say the liquid was dirty because there may not be any inferences that can be drawn from mere dirty liquid. If there were footprints in the liquid or other evidence to suggest length of time on the floor, perhaps one could win such a case. One of the important cases in this regard is Manns v. Giant of Maryland, LLC at 871 A. 2d 627, 161 Md. App. 620.

Apparently the city of Miami has agreed to pay $ 5 million to the family of a man who drowned. He was attempting to save a woman who had been caught in a riptide. Florida has case law that suggests cities have a duty to advise beachgoers of dangerous tide conditions they either knew about or should have known about. Unfortunately, the city did not have lifeguards or any posted signs at the location of the drowning. In Maryland, there would be a cap on non economic loss damages so this type of settlement might not be possible. Maryland would also address the concept of tort immunity and a distinction between governmental and proprietary function would have to be addressed. Drowning at beach.

An insurance company can refuse payments if their insured is not cooperative in the defense of a case. There are numerous cases on this subject but the basis for the proposition can be found in The Maryland Code, Insurance Article, 19-110. The cases suggest that the right to refuse payment derives from the fact that the insurance company has been prejudiced in their ability to properly defend the case. Prejudice, therefore, becomes the real issue in these cases. If, for example, the accident is a simple rear end accident where liability is virtually not in question, the suggestion of non cooperation might not apply because liability is often stipulated anyway. Moreover, if the defendant/insured really cannot offer any testimony regarding the injuries of a party at the scene of the accident, there can hardly be any prejudice under those circumstances either. Thus, the insurance company cannot just arbitrarily deny coverage of a claim because the insured failed to cooperate if the failure is inconsequential anyway. In order to invoke this defense, the insurance company must prove that the failure of cooperation has, in a significant way, precluded or hampered it from presenting a legitimate jury issue. Maryland Auto Accident Lawyer.