We are closely tracking the rapidly evolving public health and community concerns related to the new coronavirus or COVID-19. Feel free to reach out to us any time at ryan@foranlaw.com or (301) 441-2022 for assistance with your legal matter.

Articles Posted in Auto Accidents

When several motor vehicles are involved in a Maryland personal injury accident, questions regarding liability and negligence may be more complex than in a typical two-vehicle collision.  An April 21, 2021 case before the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland illustrates some of the issues that may arise in a personal injury lawsuit stemming from a multi-vehicle accident.

The case at issue involved the chain-reaction, rear-end collisions of four motor vehicles on a Maryland highway.  The plaintiff in the case was driving when the vehicles in front of him came to a stop.  When the plaintiff applied his breaks to avoid hitting them, a second driver collided into the rear of the plaintiff’s car.  A third driver then rear-ended the second driver, which caused her vehicle to hit the plaintiff’s car again.  The repeated impact caused the plaintiff’s car to strike the fourth vehicle, which was directly in front of his.

The plaintiff filed a negligence suit against the second and third drivers, and the case went to trial.  After denying the defendants’ motions for judgment, the court submitted the case to the jury.  The jury found that the defendants were negligent, and awarded the plaintiff $34,000 for medical expenses, over $10,000 for lost income, and $500,000 in noneconomic damages.

Continue Reading ›

Reckless or negligent driving can cause accidents that result in serious injuries or even death to passengers.  In a March 8, 2021 opinion, the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland reviewed a wrongful death case arising out of a fatal car accident.  The wife of the decedent filed the lawsuit against the police officers involved in a high-speed chase that led up to the vehicle collision.  After a jury awarded damages of over $475,000 to the plaintiff, the trial court entered judgment notwithstanding the verdict for the defendants, effectively negating the jury verdict.  The plaintiff appealed the issue to the higher court.

On the night of the accident, the defendant was pulling over a motorist for driving after dark without headlights on.  The defendant called for back up after noticing that the driver had not put his SUV in park, and a second officer pulled up shortly thereafter.  At that point, the driver drove away and accelerated at a high rate of speed.  The defendant gave a thumbs up and yelled to a third officer who had just arrived to “go, go!”  The officers were pursuing the SUV when the driver lost control, went airborne, and crashed into the decedent’s car.

At trial, the plaintiffs presented evidence that the high speed chase of the driver was prohibited by a written policy of the police department.  The jury found the defendant negligent in instituting a police pursuit of the driver, which resulted in the fatal accident and death of the decedent.  After the verdict, the defendant argued that he was entitled to statutory immunity.  The trial court granted judgment for the defendant after ruling that he was immune based on common law and Maryland law.

Continue Reading ›

A person who is injured in an auto accident may be able to recover damages against the negligent driver who caused the collision.  Negligence on the part of the injured driver is not necessarily a bar to recovering damages.  In a February 26, 2021 negligence case, the Court of Appeals of Maryland considered the effect of the plaintiff’s alleged negligence with respect to a multi-vehicle collision.

The plaintiff in the case was driving on a three-lane boulevard in rush hour traffic when her mini-van overheated and stalled in the right lane.  The road did not have any shoulder onto which she could move the van.  The driver of the car behind the plaintiff’s van attempted to move into the middle lane just as a pick-up truck from the far left lane merged into the same middle lane.  The truck collided with the car, causing the car to be propelled into the plaintiff’s stalled mini-van.

The plaintiff filed a personal injury action against the drivers of the car and the truck, alleging negligence.  The defendants, in turn, claimed that the plaintiff was contributorily negligent in causing the accident.  The circuit court entered summary judgment in favor of the defendants, finding that the plaintiff had been negligent.  The plaintiff then appealed the decision.

Continue Reading ›

To establish a personal injury claim, the plaintiff must prove each element of the cause of action.  In a January 19, 2021, Maryland car accident case, the only element at issue was the matter of damages suffered by the plaintiff.  Although the defendant had admitted his negligence in causing the collision, the plaintiff was nevertheless required to prove her injuries and damages flowing from the accident.  After the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff but awarded no damages, the plaintiff appealed, and the matter came before the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland.

The plaintiff in the case was stopped at an intersection when the defendant collided into the rear of her vehicle.  The defendant admitted that he had taken his eyes off the road and apologized to the plaintiff.  The plaintiff did not seek medical attention at the time of the accident.  The next morning, however, the plaintiff felt that her body was starting to stiffen up.  She went to see an orthopedic surgeon who had previously treated her for a neck condition.  Her surgeon concluded that the plaintiff’s injuries were consistent with whiplash.  Over the next two years, the plaintiff continued to seek medical treatment for cervical and lumbar strains.

At trial, the sole issue was the amount of damages, if any, suffered by the plaintiff.  The plaintiff presented witness testimony from her doctors and parents.  She did not introduce any of her medical bills into evidence, relying purely on testimony to establish her damages.  After a brief deliberation, the jury returned a verdict awarding the plaintiff zero damages.

Continue Reading ›

In a typical personal injury suit arising out of a car accident, the plaintiff has the burden to prove that the defendant’s negligence caused the plaintiff’s injuries.  In a December 10, 2020 opinion, the Court of Appeals of Maryland reviewed a case involving an automobile collision. Following a trial, the jury concluded the plaintiff’s injuries were not caused or aggravated by the Maryland car accident.  After the lower court denied the plaintiff’s motion for a new trial, the plaintiff filed an appeal.

The plaintiff in the case was making a left turn at an intersection pursuant to a green arrow when the defendant proceeded through a red light and collided with the plaintiff’s vehicle.  The plaintiff testified that she felt some discomfort immediately after the collision, so she went home instead of going to work.  Weeks later, the plaintiff sought care from her regular health care provider, who had been treating her neck and back pain for several years.  She began physical therapy, but when that caused her pain, she went to an orthopedist who recommended surgery.  The plaintiff underwent shoulder surgery thereafter.

The plaintiff filed suit against the defendant, alleging that the accident caused her shoulder injury and seeking compensation for her medical expenses.  The case went to trial, and although the jury found that the defendant was negligent in the accident, it also found that the injuries to the plaintiff were not caused or aggravated by the accident.  On appeal, the plaintiff contended that the statements made by the defendant’s counsel during opening arguments were prejudicial and violated the “golden rule.”

Continue Reading ›

In some Maryland personal injury cases, the parties will resolve their claims before trial by a settlement agreement.  Occasionally, an issue may arise, as in a September 30, 2020 case before the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland.  The case involved a negligence claim against a hotel, and a settlement offer from the hotel’s insurance company.

The plaintiff in the case had filed a negligence suit against the hotel, alleging that she suffered personal injuries as a result of its negligence.  Prior to trial, the insurance adjuster for the hotel offered to pay the plaintiff $18,000 to settle her personal injury claims.  One day into the trial, counsel for the plaintiff informed the insurance adjuster that the plaintiff would be willing to accept $21,500.  The insurance adjuster declined, but confirmed that the $18,000 offer was still on the table.

The trial continued, and the plaintiff closed her case without calling any witnesses.  During the lunch recess, the plaintiff’s counsel informed the defendant that the plaintiff accepted the offer of $18,000 from its insurance company.  Counsel for the defense then contacted the insurance adjuster, who stated that the offer was no longer available.  The next day, the jury returned a verdict finding that the hotel was not negligent.

Continue Reading ›

Motor vehicle accidents involving pedestrians can result in serious personal injuries to the more vulnerable people who are on foot.  If a Maryland pedestrian accident was caused by a careless driver, the person on foot may be able to recover damages for medical expenses and other losses in a negligence action.  The Court of Special Appeals of Maryland recently issued an October 14, 2020 opinion in an unusual car accident case.

The plaintiffs in the case filed a personal injury action against the defendant, alleging that the defendant had injured them by negligently striking them with her vehicle.  More specifically, the plaintiffs claimed that the defendant was making a left turn and struck the plaintiffs in the middle of a marked crosswalk on the street, knocking them to the ground and injuring them.

The defendant, in turn, argued that her vehicle never made contact with the plaintiffs.  The defendant further claimed that the plaintiffs were already injured before they entered the crosswalk and had laid down in the road as her vehicle approached them.  At trial, a witness testified that she saw the plaintiffs standing on the sidewalk prior to the incident and noticed that their faces were bloody.  The witness went on to testify that the plaintiffs had laid down in the street before the defendant had even approached. Following trial, the jury found in favor of the defendant.

Continue Reading ›

The surviving family members of a decedent may bring a wrongful death action against the person responsible for the death of their loved one by working with a Maryland personal injury attorney.  When negligence is alleged against a municipality or law enforcement officers, they may be held to a different legal standard.  In a July 20, 2020 case, the Court of Special Appeals reviewed a wrongful death claim against the county and a police officer.  One of the issues on appeal was whether summary judgment was property granted in favor of the defendants as to the gross negligence of the officer.

The plaintiffs in the case were the parents of a 17-month-old child.  The police officer was pursuing a suspect who had fled the scene of a hit-and-run accident at a high rate of speed.  The officer was driving at an average speed of 90 miles per hour to keep up with the suspect, in a residential and commercial area.  The car chase ended when the suspect ran a red light and struck another vehicle.  That vehicle was forced onto the curb, where it struck a stroller carrying the plaintiffs’ child.

The plaintiffs sued the county and the police officer, alleging gross negligence and wrongful death, among other claims.  The defendants claimed immunity from liability under Maryland law.  After the lower court granted summary judgment for the defendants, the plaintiffs appealed on multiple grounds.

Continue Reading ›

Auto insurance laws vary widely among states.  When the court must determine which state’s law to apply in a car accident case, multiple factors are considered.  In an August 11, 2020 decision, the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland reviewed whether Maryland law was properly applied in a case involving an insurance policy issued in Pennsylvania.

The plaintiff in the case was a passenger in a vehicle that was involved in a rear-end accident in Maryland.  Both the plaintiff and the driver of the vehicle in which she rode were Pennsylvania residents.  The driver and owner of the other vehicle that rear-ended the plaintiff’s vehicle were residents of Maryland.  As a result of the accident, the plaintiff suffered neck and back injuries that required extensive medical treatment, including multiple surgeries.

The plaintiff filed suit in Maryland, seeking damages for medical expenses.  She brought claims against the other driver and the other driver’s insurance company, as well as her own insurance company and the insurance company of the driver of the vehicle in which she rode. The plaintiff settled with the other driver’s insurer for the liability limits of their policy.  The plaintiff continued to pursue her claims against the other insurers for underinsured/uninsured motorist coverage.

Continue Reading ›

In a Maryland personal injury action, the plaintiff may seek damages for economic and non-economic losses.  Non-economic damages may include compensation for pain, suffering, emotional distress, and loss of enjoyment of life, among others.  Unlike economic damages, which are based on objective evidence of the monetary loss and expenses incurred from an injury, non-economic damages are determined subjectively.  In a July 1, 2020 decision, the Maryland Court of Special Appeals reviewed a jury verdict awarding the plaintiff $250,000 for non-economic damages in a car accident case.

The defendant in the case was involved in a motor vehicle accident while operating a truck owned by his employer.  A piece of the truck’s drive shaft flew off in the accident and bounced into the road, striking the plaintiff’s windshield and landing in her passenger seat.  The plaintiff was treated for a soft tissue sprain injuries.  She was also treated for anxiety, depression, and other emotional issues related to the accident.

The plaintiff filed a personal injury suit claiming emotional distress, mental anguish, and pre-impact fright.  At trial, the defendant sought to introduce evidence of the plaintiff’s personal history and prior assault conviction, arguing that those issues were the source of emotional distress for which she sought counseling.  The trial court allowed the defense to cross-examine the plaintiff and other witnesses about other causes of her emotional distress, but excluded evidence of the conviction itself.  Following deliberations, the jury awarded the plaintiff $250,000.00 for non-economic damages.

Continue Reading ›

Contact Information