Martindale-Hubbell AV Preeminent
Super Lawyers
Super Lawyers Rising Stars
Maryland State Bar Association
Top 100 Trial Lawyers
DC Bar
Maryland Association for Justice
American Bar Association
Prince George's County Bar Association

Many Maryland residents rely on public transportation and expect that they will be able to access such conveyances without suffering harm. Unfortunately, however, it is not uncommon for passengers on public transportation to encounter dangerous conditions that ultimately cause them to suffer injuries. Whether a transit authority will be held liable for harm sustained in an accident on one of its vehicles depends, in part, on whether it had notice of the allegedly harmful condition, as explained in a recent Maryland opinion. If you were hurt while riding public transportation, it is advisable to speak to a Maryland personal injury lawyer to evaluate your possible causes of action.

The Plaintiff’s Harm

It is reported that the plaintiff suffered injuries while riding a bus owned and operated by the defendant transit authority. Specifically, she tripped over the frame of the wheelchair ramp while entering the bus and stumbled. She subsequently filed a personal injury lawsuit against the defendant, seeking compensation for her harm. Following discovery, the defendant moved for summary judgment arguing, among other things, that the plaintiff failed to establish the defendant had notice of the allegedly dangerous condition as required to recover damages under Maryland law.

Notice of Dangerous Conditions

In Maryland, in order to recover damages for negligence, a plaintiff must demonstrate a duty, a breach of the duty, proximate cause, and damages. Further, a property owner’s liability to a person injured on their property depends on the individual’s status; for example, property owners have a duty to protect invitees from injuries caused by unreasonable risks that the invitees are unlikely to uncover. Continue Reading ›

Negligence in the context of medical care can cause extensive injuries; as such, the law permits people harmed by the carelessness of their treatment providers to seek compensation via medical malpractice claims. Merely establishing negligence is not sufficient to recover damages from reckless providers, however. Rather, a plaintiff must also show that the defendant’s negligence caused their alleged harm, as explained in a recent Maryland medical malpractice matter. If you suffered damages due to incompetent medical care, you should confer with a Maryland medical malpractice lawyer regarding your rights as soon as possible.

The Facts of the Case

It is alleged that in 2015, the defendant performed a myomectomy on the plaintiff to remove a uterine fibroid. Following the surgery, she experienced significant pain that ultimately prompted her to seek additional care. Testing showed evidence of an infection, and she underwent a subsequent surgery that revealed she had a perforated bowel. She underwent a third surgery a week later, in which it was established that she had a perforated rectum as well.

It is reported that the plaintiff instituted a medical malpractice case against the defendant. The case proceeded to trial, and the defendant moved for judgment as a matter of law. The court denied his motion. The jury found in favor of the plaintiff, after which the defendant renewed his motion and filed a motion to alter the judgment. Continue Reading ›

If a driver causes a collision, their insurance company will frequently provide compensation to anyone injured in the crash for the cost of their medical care. Such remunerations are often insufficient to cover a person’s losses, however; as such injured parties will often turn to their insurer to recover underinsured motorist benefits. Insurers may be reluctant to pay insureds benefits they are rightfully owed, though, and may argue that the losses suffered are not compensable, citing evidence such as medical records to support their position.

Recently, a Maryland court discussed what evidence might be considered in a claim for underinsured motorist benefits in a matter in which the plaintiff sought to exclude numerous categories of evidence. If you were hurt in a car accident caused by another driver, it is wise to speak to a Maryland car accident lawyer regarding your possible claims.

The Facts of the Case

It is alleged that the plaintiff sustained injuries in a collision caused by another motorist. He received policy limits from the other driver’s insurer, but they were inadequate to compensate him for his harm. As such, he filed an underinsured motorist claim with the defendant, his auto insurance company. The defendant denied the plaintiff’s claim arguing that the plaintiff’s losses arose out of a fall at a family function rather than a car accident. The plaintiff then filed a lawsuit against the defendant to recover benefits and subsequently filed numerous motions in limine asking the court to exclude parts of his medical history and other information from evidence.

Continue Reading ›

Generally, Maryland law affords plaintiffs the right to file lawsuits in the venue of their choice. There are specific parameters they must abide by, however, and if a defendant believes the plaintiff’s chosen venue is improper, it can move to transfer the case to another court. Recently, a Maryland court explained the grounds for relocating a case on the basis of improper venue in a matter in which the plaintiff alleged that she suffered harm due to the negligent insertion and removal of an IUD birth control device. If you sustained losses due to negligent medical care, it is in your best interest to meet with a Maryland medical malpractice attorney to assess your options for seeking damages.

The Facts of the Case

It is alleged that the plaintiff underwent an IUD birth control device implantation in 2010. The procedure was performed at Baltimore city clinic owned by the defendant. In 2018, the plaintiff visited the defendant’s Baltimore County clinic to have the IUD removed by the defendant nurse practitioner. The IUD broke during the process of removal, leaving a fragment in the plaintiff’s uterus. She underwent a subsequent surgery to remove the portion left behind, but it was unsuccessful, and she had to undergo a hysterectomy.

Reportedly, the plaintiff subsequently filed a lawsuit in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, naming the clinic, the nurse practitioner, and three foreign companies involved in manufacturing and distributing the IUD as defendants. The defendant clinic and defendant nurse practitioner moved to transfer the matter to the Circuit Court for Baltimore County because the plaintiff’s chosen venue was improper. The trial court granted the motion, and the plaintiff appealed. Continue Reading ›

Warehouse stores generally offer shoppers a variety of goods at low prices, and many Maryland residents shop in such stores on a regular basis. Unfortunately, it is not uncommon for certain areas of stores to fall into disarray, creating hazards that can lead to falls. While stores can be held accountable for harm suffered by their customers in certain situations, they generally will not be deemed liable unless they knew or should have known of a dangerous condition before the harmful incident. This was illustrated in a recent Maryland ruling in which the court dismissed the plaintiff’s negligence claim against a warehouse store because the plaintiff failed to prove notice. If you were hurt in a slip and fall accident, you may be owed damages, and you should speak to a Maryland premises liability lawyer about your potential claims.

The Plaintiff’s Fall

It is alleged that the plaintiff was shopping at a warehouse store owned by the defendant with her husband when she slipped and fell while walking between two circular racks of clothing. The store manager arrived at the scene shortly after the incident and saw an empty hanger lying on the floor and several hangers on the floor under the rack. The plaintiff did not see the hanger before her fall.

It is reported that the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant, alleging that its negligence led to her harm. After discovery was complete, the defendant moved for summary judgment. The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish notice as required under Maryland law and ruled in favor of the defendant. Continue Reading ›

Postal workers typically operate vehicles owned by the United States Post Office (USPS) when they are working. As such, if a postal worker causes a collision during the process of delivering the mail, the federal government may be deemed liable for any losses caused by the crash. While the Federal Tort Claims Act (the Act) permits people to pursue claims against the federal government in certain situations, they must comply with the applicable procedural rules, otherwise, their claims may be dismissed.  Recently, a Maryland court discussed the administrative remedies a plaintiff must exhaust before seeking damages from the federal government, in a case arising out of a car accident. If you were involved in a collision with a federal employee, it is in your best interest to meet with a Maryland car accident attorney as soon as possible to protect your right to seek compensation.

The Factual and Procedural History of the Case

It is reported that the plaintiff was driving his car on a Maryland highway when he collided with a postal vehicle that made an unsafe left turn in front of him. Three days after the accident, he had a telephone call with a USPS specialist who confirmed that the accident occurred and that the postal worker was at fault.

Allegedly, the plaintiff then retained an attorney who sent a demand letter and an SF-95 form to the USPS. Notably, neither the letter nor the form indicated the amount of damages the plaintiff sought. The plaintiff subsequently filed a federal lawsuit against the USPS, asserting a negligence claim. The USPS moved, inter alia, to dismiss the complaint due to the plaintiff’s failure to exhaust his administrative remedies. Continue Reading ›

People hurt in car accidents will often seek damages from the parties they deem responsible for their losses. Some people may be reluctant to hire an attorney, though, and for a variety of reasons, will proceed with their claims pro se. As demonstrated in a recent ruling issued by a Maryland court in a case arising out of a collision, however, non-attorneys typically lack knowledge of the procedural rules, which can be fatal to their claims. If you were hurt in a car crash, it is smart to contact a Maryland car accident attorney to discuss your options for seeking damages.

The Relevant History

It is reported that the plaintiff filed a complaint, pro se, in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, Southern Division. The complaint asserted that the defendant drove an unsafe vehicle that subsequently caused a collision with the plaintiff and that due to the crash, the plaintiff suffered extensive damages. The plaintiff sought punitive damages on the grounds that the defendant knew the vehicle was unsafe prior to the accident. The defendant moved to dismiss the plaintiff’s complaint, arguing that the plaintiff failed to assert a claim that would entitle him to relief. Upon review, the Court granted the defendant’s motion.

Pleading Requirements in Car Accident Cases Filed in Federal Court

The pleading standards established by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (the Rules) only require a party to set forth a plain and short statement of their claim that shows they are entitled to relief. The Rules dictate, though, that if a complaint does not set forth a claim for which relief may be granted, it should be dismissed. As such, a motion to dismiss requires an analysis of the sufficiency of a complaint. Continue Reading ›

Spills regularly occur in grocery stores, and if they are not cleaned up promptly, they can lead to slip and fall accidents. While grocery stores can be held accountable for losses caused by their carelessness, they will often try to avoid liability by arguing that the injured party is partially at fault for their harm. In a recent opinion, a Maryland court explained the affirmative defense of contributory negligence and what a defendant must prove to prevail on the defense. If you were injured in a slip and fall accident, you should speak to a Maryland premises liability attorney as soon as possible to determine what evidence you must produce to recover compensation.

The Facts of the Case

It is reported that the plaintiff was shopping in the defendant’s grocery store when she slipped and fell in an area that a store employee recently mopped. She sustained knee injuries that required surgical repair. She subsequently filed a premises liability lawsuit against the defendant, arguing that its negligence caused her harm. Following discovery, the defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing, among other things, the affirmative defense of contributory negligence.

It is alleged that the defendant argued that the knowledge that the floor was wet should be imputed to the plaintiff because there were “wet floor” warning signs in the store. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant, and the plaintiff appealed. Continue Reading ›

A Maryland personal injury action is initiated when the plaintiff files a pleading, commonly referred to as the complaint, with the courts.  If the complaint does not conform to the Maryland Rules, it may be dismissed, as in an October 20, 2021 case before the Court of Special Appeals.  The plaintiff brought the appeal after the circuit court dismissed his complaint and denied his motion to file an amended complaint.

The plaintiff in the case was injured while performing his job as a construction worker.  As he was using a bore for the installation of a gas pipeline, the tool caught on his foot.  His foot slipped and went inside the machine, resulting in severe injuries to his foot and a partial amputation.  The plaintiff filed a negligence action against multiple companies and contractors present on the job site, as well as the owner of the property, and sought damages exceeding two million dollars.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the complaint did not comply with the Maryland Rules.  In particular, the defendants argued that the complaint failed to characterize the damages sought as being in excess of $75,000, asserted the same legal conclusions against all of the defendants, and failed to allege any facts establishing the liability of a specific defendant.  The plaintiff opposed the motion and sought to amend the complaint, which the circuit court denied.  The ruling effectively barred the plaintiff’s suit, as any re-filed action would be subject to a statue of limitations defense. 

Continue Reading ›

Determining the appropriate circuit court in which to file a Maryland personal injury action depends on several factors.  In certain situations, the plaintiff’s initial choice of venue may be transferred to another court at the request of a defendant.  In a September 23, 2021 opinion, the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland reviewed whether a circuit court had properly granted the defendant’s motion for a change of venue.

The plaintiff in the case alleged that he suffered injuries as a result of a forklift accident at the defendant’s warehouse, which was located in Howard County.  The accident occurred as the plaintiff was moving boxes onto a loading dock.  At the same time, an employee of the defendant was operating a forklift to transport trash from the loading dock.  The plaintiff claimed that the employee struck and rolled over the plaintiff with the forklift, causing bodily injuries.

The plaintiff filed a negligence action against the employee operating the forklift and the defendant in the circuit court for Prince George’s County.  The defendant subsequently moved to transfer venue to Howard County, arguing that its principal place of business is in Howard County, the accident occurred in Howard County, and at least some witnesses would be from Howard County.  When the court granted the motion, the plaintiff appealed. 

Continue Reading ›

Contact Information