Articles Posted in Personal Injury

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

In some situations, homeowners may be liable for a personal injury that occurs on their property.  The care they must take to avoid liability depends on the status of the injured party.  In a May 3, 2021 case, the plaintiff filed a Maryland negligence suit against her neighbor after falling down the steps of her neighbor’s porch.  The issue before the Court of Special Appeals turned on the legal status of the plaintiff at the time of her injury.

The plaintiff in the case had returned home from work that day and found she was unable to open her front door.  She walked to her neighbor’s house and her neighbor’s grandson, who had answered the door, lent the plaintiff a metal knife.  After successfully unjamming her door, the plaintiff went back to her neighbor’s house later that day to return it.  After handing the knife to her neighbor, the plaintiff turned to leave down the staircase descending from the front porch.  She lost her balance and fell, suffering serious injuries to her leg.

The plaintiff filed a premises liability suit, alleging that her injuries were caused by her neighbor’s negligent maintenance of the premises.  The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendant, finding that the plaintiff was a bare licensee and that the defendant had not breached any duty to the plaintiff.  The plaintiff appealed that decision to the higher court.

Continue reading

The evidence in a Maryland personal injury case, or lack thereof, can have a significant impact on the outcome.  In an April 27, 2021 opinion, the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland considered whether an unavailable, and potentially unrecorded, surveillance video could be used as evidence.  The matter came before the court after the plaintiff had won his personal injury claim against an amusement park at trial.

The plaintiff in the case was visiting the water park area of an amusement park with his two sons.  While shirtless, the plaintiff left the water park area and was approached on two occasions by park security, who informed the plaintiff of the park’s policy prohibiting entry into the amusement park area without a shirt.  After several heated exchanges, an altercation occurred between the security guards and the plaintiff, which lead to the plaintiff’s head hitting the ground.  The plaintiff filed suit against the amusement park for his alleged injuries.

During the closing arguments at trial, the plaintiff’s counsel noted to the jury that the incident had occurred in an area of the park that the defendant had admitted was under surveillance by cameras.  However, no witness testified as to whether any video of the evidence was captured, and if so, whether it had been destroyed or was missing.

Continue reading

Business entities may be liable for injuries caused by a dangerous condition on their property.  In a March 26, 2021 Maryland personal injury case, the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland considered whether an unpainted rollover curb constituted an unreasonable risk to a student.  The issue was appealed after the lower court ruled that, as a matter of law, the unpainted curb was not a dangerous condition.

The plaintiff in the case was injured when she tripped on an unpainted rollover curb in the parking lot of a university student center.  A rollover curb consists of a gradual incline from street level up to the sidewalk.  Some of the curbs on the perimeter of the parking lot were painted yellow to delineate fire lanes, areas in which parking was prohibited to allow access for fire trucks and emergency vehicles.  The plaintiff stated that she tripped over an unpainted section of a rollover curb near or adjoining a yellow-painted curb.

The plaintiff brought a negligence action against the university, claiming that it breached its duty to protect against latent, unreasonable risks.  The university moved for summary judgment, arguing that it did not breach its duty of care.  After the circuit court granted summary judgment for the university, the plaintiff appealed.

Continue reading

Depending on the circumstances of a Maryland personal injury accident, negligence may be alleged against an employer based on a theory of vicarious liability.  In a February 25, 2021 opinion, the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland considered whether the defendant, a supermarket owner, could be held vicariously liable for injuries allegedly caused by a third-party vendor.  The matter came on appeal after the jury found in favor of the plaintiff and awarded her nearly $400,000 in damages.

The plaintiff in the case was injured while shopping at a supermarket owned and operated by the defendant.  The injury occurred in the frozen-foods aisle.  The plaintiff testified that as she turned to put an item in her basket, she was struck in the back, which caused her to fall to the ground.  The plaintiff believed that she was struck by the stock cart of a delivery man whom she had noticed prior to her fall.  The man, who was not an employee but a third-party vendor delivering soda products to the supermarket, denied striking the plaintiff.

The plaintiff alleged that the supermarket was liable as a result of negligence based on alternative theories of premises liability and vicarious liability.  After the close of evidence at trial, the circuit court granted judgment for the defendant on the issue of premises liability.  The remaining issue was submitted to the jury, which found that the defendant was vicariously liable for the negligence of its vendor.

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

In some situations, an employer may be liable for a personal injury caused by one of its employees within the scope of their employment.  This type of negligence suit is based on a theory of vicarious liability.  In a March 3, 2021 opinion, the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland reviewed a case involving an alleged battery that occurred at a bar.  The plaintiff claimed that the owner of the bar was liable for her injuries, which she alleged were inflicted by one of its employees.  The matter came before the court on an appeal filed by the plaintiff following a jury verdict in favor of the defendant.

The plaintiff in the case was attending a New Year’s Eve party with some friends at a bar operated by the defendant.  She had been a customer of the bar for several years and knew many of the employees.  One of the people she recognized as an employee approached her and grabbed her arm, causing her to fall to the ground.  The plaintiff suffered ankle injuries as a result of the fall.

The plaintiff sued the bar for her injuries, alleging that the person who grabbed her was an employee, agent, or servant of the bar and was acting within the scope and during the course of his employment.  The defendant, however, claimed that it had fired the person identified by the plaintiff approximately seven months before the incident.  After a three-day trial, the jury determined that the person was an employee of the bar on the date in question, but that his actions were not within the scope of his employment.  The jury ultimately found the defendant not liable for the plaintiff’s injuries.

Continue reading

In a negligence lawsuit, the testimony of an expert witness may be crucial to provide evidence supporting or refuting the allegations.  A qualified expert may testify as to the standard of care, causation, damages, and/or other elements of the claim.  In a February 2, 2021 Maryland personal injury case, the Court of Special Appeals considered whether the opinion testimony of an expert was properly allowed by the trial court.  The appeal was brought by the defendant after a jury awarded damages to the plaintiff resulting from his exposure to lead paint.

The plaintiff in the case had resided in a property owned by the defendant from his birth in December of 1991 to March of 1993.  The plaintiff claimed that as a result of his exposure to chipping, lead-based paint at the property, he suffered permanent cognitive deficits.  The plaintiff further alleged that the defendant’s negligence in failing to remove the lead-based paint from the property was a substantial contributing factor in causing his injuries.

At trial, the plaintiff presented testimony from multiple expert witnesses, including an expert in the field of lead-based paint detection, a clinical psychologist, a neurodevelopment pediatrician and a vocational rehabilitation consultant.  The jury ultimately returned a verdict finding that the defendant was negligent and awarded the plaintiff nearly $885,000 in future noneconomic damages and past damages.

Continue reading

Non-economic damages, such as pain and suffering, may be awarded in a Maryland personal injury lawsuit to compensate injured plaintiffs and their families for intangible losses.  Damages for pain and suffering, although not easily quantified by a dollar amount, can rest on the credibility of the plaintiff’s testimony, as in a January 6, 2021, personal injury case.  After the jury in the case awarded $350,000 to the plaintiff for non-economic damages, the defendant filed a motion to reduce the judgment.  The trial court denied the motion, and the defendant appealed the matter to the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland.

The plaintiff in the case was dining at a restaurant owned by the defendant.  As she was eating a nacho appetizer, she bit into an industrial metal screw that had separated from the machine in the kitchen that tosses tortilla chips.  The pain was immediate and searing.  She incurred injuries to the upper left part of her mouth that required two root canals and three crowns.

The plaintiff filed a personal injury suit against the defendant, seeking damages to compensate her for her medical expenses, lost wages, and pain and suffering.  The defendant conceded that it owed the plaintiff a duty of care and that it had breached this duty.  Before trial, the plaintiff withdrew her claims for past medical expenses and lost wages, leaving non-economic damages as the only component of her requested damages.  The sole issues for the jury, therefore, were whether the screw proximately caused the plaintiff’s injuries, and if so, the amount, if any, of non-economic damages to award the plaintiff.  After a three-day trial, the jury returned a verdict of $350,000.

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

Contact Information