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

Generally, people seeking damages in personal injury lawsuits will allege that they suffered bodily harm. While plaintiffs can usually recover compensation for physical injuries they suffered as a result of someone else’s negligence, they cannot recover damages for emotional injuries caused by learning about or witnessing property damage. There are exceptions to the general rule, though, like the personal safety exception, as discussed in a recent Maryland case. If you suffered emotional harm due to another party’s carelessness, it is advisable to contact a Maryland personal injury lawyer to discuss whether you might be owed damages.

The History of the Case

It is reported that the defendant crashed his truck into the plaintiffs’ house in September 2019. The accident occurred early in the morning. While the plaintiffs were home at the time of the incident, they did not sustain any physical harm. They suffered emotional injuries, however, and subsequently sought compensation from the defendant in a personal injury lawsuit. After the completion of discovery, the defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiffs could not recover damages for emotional injuries brought about by witnessing damage to their property. The trial court granted the defendant’s motion, and the plaintiffs appealed.

The Personal Safety Exception

On appeal, the trial court ruling was reversed. In Maryland, a plaintiff ordinarily cannot recover compensation for emotional injuries caused by witnessing carelessly inflicted injury to their property. There are exceptions, however, including the personal safety exception. The court explained that the personal safety exception allows for recovery when the defendant’s carelessness caused property damage that subsequently causes emotional harm that is brought about by the plaintiff’s reasonable fear for their own safety or for the safety of their family members. Continue Reading ›

Under Maryland law, property owners generally have an obligation to maintain their premises in a safe condition to prevent visitors from suffering harm. Simply because an accident occurs at a property does not mean that the owner neglected its duties, though. Instead, a property owner will usually only be held liable for harm if it was caused by a dangerous condition on their premises that the owner knew or should have known of, as discussed in a recent Maryland case. If you were hurt in a trip and fall accident on someone else’s property, you might be able to recover compensation, and you should speak to a Maryland premises liability lawyer about your potential claims.

History of the Case

It is reported that the plaintiff suffered injuries when she stepped off of a curb and fell into a six inch depression in a shopping center parking lot owned and managed by the defendant. She filed a premises liability lawsuit against the defendant, alleging that it negligently failed to inspect and maintain the subject lot. The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing that it did not owe a duty to the plaintiff or have a duty to inspect the lot for conditions of which it had no prior knowledge. The court agreed and granted the defendant’s motion. The plaintiff appealed.

Establishing a Property Owner’s Liability

The trial court’s ruling was affirmed on appeal. In Maryland, a property owner may be liable for physical harm invitees suffer due to a dangerous condition on their land, but only if they know or reasonably should know that the condition presents a reasonable risk of harm to visitors, that said visitors are unlikely to discover the condition, and the owner fails to protect them from the potential danger. Continue Reading ›

The owner of the ship that is responsible for the Key Bridge collapse has filed a petition to seek a cap on damages at 43 million dollars.  The complaint asks the court to consolidate all claims and limit or deny liability under the limitation of liability act of 1851. Plaintiffs with a claim against the ship or responsible party will try to break the limit on liability.  According to the petition filed in court on Monday, the value of the Dali was 90 million when it left the Port of Baltimore. repair of the ship is expected to cost at least 28 million.  Salvage of the ship is likely going to cost at least 19.5 million.  It is unclear if the estimates of value will be accepted or disputed by the interested parties.  There is still a search for additional bodies that are missing.

We should all be able appreciate the sheer physics of riding on a nearly one thousand foot long cargo container ship.  This ship is roughly the size of the Empire State Building.  Trying to navigate the waters and bridges with this type of vessel is no easy task no matter the skill of the operator.

Much continues develop every day with the surviving structures of the bridge, the port of the vessel, and the hazmat containers.  There are reports of several containers that have either entered the water or have been breached.  The hazards in the area including the cold temperatures, debris, potential hazardous materials in the water all make navigating the waters challenging.  There is also a reported sheen on the water at the scene.  Containers have shifted and could be in danger falling.  State and Federal agencies have been and are still on the scene with divers and drones.  We are finding now that the minutes leading up the collision, alarms were sounded as the ship was out of control.  Power was out and the major systems of the vessel were out of order.

According to the Baltimore City Fire Department, salvage continues to occur as waste is removed.   The vessel data recorder is the recording device on the marine vessel that measures activity.  These devices are not as good as black boxes but do provide data.  Evidence from the engine room data would certainly help to diagnose the issues leading to any crash.  Currently, the technology does not exist to show immediately if the failure was mechanical or electrical.

Traffic will be seriously impacted after the collapse of the Francis Scott Key Bridge on March 26, 2024, along Interstate 695 in Baltimore, Maryland. Following the early morning accident which was caused by a vessel that crashed into the bridge, drivers were immediately directed to take alternate routes through the city. The Maryland Transportation Authority said all lanes were closed on I-695. Most drivers can take Interstate 95, the Fort McHenry Tunnel, or Interstate 895, the Baltimore Harbor Tunnel, as alternate routes of travel. However, the Maryland Transportation Authority reminds drivers that vehicles carrying hazardous materials, including more than 10 pounds of propane, are not allowed in the tunnels. Additionally, vehicles more than 13-feet and 6-inches high or 8-feet wide may not use the 1-895 Baltimore Harbor Tunnel. Vehicles more than 14-feet and 6-inches high or 11-feet wide may not use the I-95 Fort McHenry Tunnel. Those vehicles should use the western portion of I-695 instead. An estimated 35,000 people used the bridge on a daily basis.

All vessel traffic into and out of the Port of Baltimore is suspended until further notice. The Port of Baltimore handled more than $80 billion in imports and exports in 2023, according to census data.

Bridge collapse accidents are rare. A search of the internet will reveal many ship collisions causing major injuries and damages.

Parties in civil lawsuits will usually ask jurors to weigh the evidence presented and determine issues such as liability and damages. Generally, the courts regulate what evidence the parties can submit to the jury. If a court rules improvidently with regard to what evidence is relevant or appropriate, it may harm a party’s case. Merely because a party does not concur with a judge’s reasoning with regard to evidence does not mean that a verdict should be overturned, though, as demonstrated in a recent Maryland ruling issued in a car accident case. If you were injured in a collision, it is in your best interest to talk to a Maryland auto accident lawyer to discuss what evidence you must produce to recover damages.

Factual and Procedural Background of the Case

It is reported that the plaintiff suffered injuries in a collision that occurred when the defendant struck the rear of her car. She filed a personal injury lawsuit against the defendant, asserting a negligence claim. The defendant admitted liability, and the case proceeded to trial on the issue of damages. The defendant was not present during the trial; twice during the trial, his attorney stated that he was absent because he had cancer and his health did not allow him to be there. The plaintiff’s attorney objected to the statement that the defendant had terminal cancer, and the court sustained the objection.

Allegedly, the plaintiff’s counsel did not seek a curative instruction or ask for any other relief. The jury ultimately found in favor of the plaintiff but did not award her damages for future medical expenses or lost wages. The plaintiff appealed, arguing that the trial court abused its discretion with regard to how it handled the statements about the defendant’s cancer. Continue Reading ›

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 ›

Contact Information