Maryland Personal Injury Blog

Maryland Court Considers Admissibility of Metadata Details in Premises Liability Case

October 29, 2021 | by Foran & Foran, P.A.

A Maryland personal injury case may involve many forms of evidence, including witness testimony, medical bills, photographs and/or video, among others. Generally, non-testimonial items of evidence must be authenticated before they are admitted at trial. Depending on the type of evidence, authentication may be made by a lay witness, or it may require an expert to lay the foundation. In a September 30, 2021 premises liability case, the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland addressed the requirements to admit digital file metadata of a cell phone picture at trial.

The plaintiff in the case fell on the sidewalk while walking her dogs, suffering a broken right foot, two sprained wrists, and a fractured left knee cap. The plaintiff alleged that she had stepped on a piece of concrete debris on the sidewalk, which caused her to fall. She filed suit against the City, which owned the sidewalks, as well as the contractor hired by the City to repair them.

At trial, the plaintiff’s friend testified that after arriving at the plaintiff’s home to take her to Urgent Care, she went outside and took photographs of the concrete debris with her iPhone, which were later admitted into evidence. The friend also admitted that she had moved the debris so that others would not fall.

Plaintiff Alleges Prescribed Medication Caused Infertility in Maryland Medical Malpractice Action

October 21, 2021 | by Foran & Foran, P.A.

In some situations, a health care provider may violate the standard of care by not informing a patient of the potentially serious side effects of a medication. In a September 24, 2021 case, the plaintiff brought claims for medical malpractice and lack of informed consent against his doctors, alleging that he was not properly informed of the high infertility risks of his prescribed medication. The case came before the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland on review of the lower court’s decision granting summary judgment in favor of one of the defendants.

In March of 2010, when the plaintiff was in his mid-20s, he was hospitalized for cough and shortness of breath. Thereafter, the plaintiff sought treatment from a pulmonologist, who prescribed increasing dosages of Cytoxan. The plaintiff’s care was assumed by a second doctor in February of 2011, who continued treatment with Cytoxan, without significant improvement, until the plaintiff was fully weaned off the medication in May of 2013.

In 2016, the plaintiff was diagnosed with infertility due to Cytoxan toxicity. The plaintiff brought a medical malpractice action in 2018 against the two doctors who treated him. The plaintiff alleged that he was not properly informed of the high infertility risks of Cytoxan, and as a result, he did not have his fertility monitored or take any other action to preserve his ability to have children. The circuit court granted summary judgment as to the claims of the first doctor as time barred. The plaintiff appealed that decision.

Maryland Plaintiff Seeks New Trial on Appeal of Alleged Police Battery Case

October 5, 2021 | by Foran & Foran, P.A.

When bringing a legal action in Maryland, it is important that the initial filing, known as the Complaint, contain all of the allegations that are relevant and essential to the claims asserted. In a May 4, 2021 personal injury case, the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland considered whether a trial court properly excluded testimony of material facts that were not specifically alleged in the Complaint. The plaintiff had brought the action against two police officers, alleging claims for battery, negligence, and punitive damages, among others.

The plaintiff in the case had been involved in a motor vehicle accident and was waiting at a nearby gas station with the other driver as law enforcement arrived. One of the responding officers, allegedly smelling marijuana and alcohol, conducted a search of the plaintiff. Although details of the ensuing altercation between the officer and the plaintiff were disputed, it ultimately resulted in the plaintiff being tasered, arrested, and charged with several crimes, which were later dropped by the state attorney.

In a deposition before trial, the plaintiff stated that he was kicked and punched, in addition to being tasered. When the plaintiff testified as to the same allegations at trial, the defense objected. The trial court granted the objection, finding that the testimony was irrelevant insofar as such acts were not alleged in the Complaint. After the jury found for the defendants, the plaintiff appealed.

Maryland Plaintiff Seeks Uninsured Motorist Benefits After Hit-and-Run Accident

September 30, 2021 | by Foran & Foran, P.A.

For victims of hit-and-run accidents in Maryland, seeking compensation for injuries may seem hopeless. In many cases, uninsured motorist coverage may be available through an auto insurance policy held by the driver or injured passenger. In a September 13, 2021 opinion, the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland considered whether or not an insurance company wrongfully denied the plaintiff’s claim for uninsured motorist benefits.

The plaintiff in the case was riding as a passenger in her daughter’s vehicle when they were rear-ended by a truck. The truck then fled the scene before the driver could be identified. At the time of the accident, the plaintiff and her daughter lived in the same household. The plaintiff’s daughter was insured under a policy that provided uninsured motorist coverage of up to $30,000 per individual. The plaintiff held a separate policy issued by the same insurer, with limits of $300,000 per individual for uninsured motorist coverage.

Because the plaintiff’s medical expenses exceeded the amount of her daughter’s policy limits, the plaintiff sought uninsured motorist benefits under both policies. The insurance company accepted the claim made under her daughter’s policy, but denied the claim made under her own policy. The plaintiff subsequently filed suit against the insurer for breach of the insurance contract. After the circuit court granted summary judgment for the insurer, the plaintiff appealed to the higher court.

Maryland Plaintiff Brings Dental Malpractice Action for Permanently Numb Tongue

September 21, 2021 | by Foran & Foran, P.A.

In Maryland, medical malpractice lawsuits are subject to the statute of limitations, which provides the deadline by which an action must be filed, or it may be dismissed as untimely. There are some exceptions to the general rule, however, as explained by the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland in an August 6, 2021 opinion.

The plaintiff in the case had his wisdom teeth removed on May 29, 2015. The following morning, the plaintiff realized that he had no sensation in his tongue. The plaintiff immediately contacted the dental center to address the issue and scheduled an appointment with the doctor who had performed the surgery. The plaintiff alleged that, at the June 11 appointment, the doctor told him that it could take up to one year for his tongue to regain full sensation, but that, with time and the use of pain medication, his tongue would get better.

After consulting with an attorney, on July 17, 2018, the plaintiff filed a claim against the doctor and the dental center, asserting that the doctor had severed the plaintiff’s lingual nerve during the extraction of his wisdom teeth. The circuit court, finding that the injury accrued on June 11, 2015, dismissed the action as barred by the statute of limitations.

Maryland Plaintiff Sues Doctor and Hospital for Negligence Following Bilateral Amputation

September 3, 2021 | by Foran & Foran, P.A.

Whether a hospital may or may not be held liable for the negligence of a physician or staff member depends on a number of factors, including whether the doctors are employees of the hospital, or independent contractors. In a July 20, 2021 opinion, the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland reviewed a medical malpractice claim against a hospital for the alleged negligence of its doctors under an apparent agency theory.

The plaintiff in the case was badly injured in a car accident on the Capital Beltway. He was transported to the hospital in an ambulance, during which time the plaintiff testified that he was in and out of consciousness. It was undisputed that the doctor who treated the plaintiff at the hospital’s trauma center was an independent contractor. Ultimately, after multiple surgeries, the plaintiff’s legs were amputated above the knee, and his left arm was permanently damaged.

The plaintiff brought claims against the doctor and hospital, alleging that the doctor was negligent in providing medical and surgical care, and that the hospital was vicariously liable for the doctor’s alleged negligence under a theory of apparent agency. Following a trial, the jury returned a verdict against the doctor, finding that he committed medical malpractice, and against the hospital, finding that the doctor was its apparent agent. The plaintiff was awarded economic and noneconomic damages of over 6 million dollars. The trial court, however, granted judgment notwithstanding the verdict in favor of the hospital as to the issue of apparent agency. The plaintiff then sought review from the appeals court.

Fatal Construction Site Accident Prompts Maryland Wrongful Death Claim

September 2, 2021 | by Foran & Foran, P.A.

In a recent Maryland wrongful death case, a tragic construction accident resulted in the death of a worker who was rigging a modular unit. The decedent’s estate brought a negligence and wrongful death action against several defendants, including another subcontractor assisting with the construction. After the lower court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant, the Court of Special Appeals reviewed the decision in a July 28, 2021 opinion.

The decedent was a construction rigger for a subcontractor working on a new building on a school campus. The building was constructed using prefabricated modular structures, which were lowered by a crane into a concrete foundation and welded together. As the rigger on site, the decedent was responsible for planning the lifting configuration of the modular units. Before the operation began, the defendant expressed safety concerns about the use of nylon straps and other equipment to secure and lift the unit into the foundation. The operation proceeded as planned, however, and the unit was lifted while the decedent guided the crane operator. After signaling to stop, the decedent moved to release the ratchet strap underneath the unit. A few seconds later, the nylon straps severed, causing the unit to fall and trap the decedent.

To succeed on a Maryland negligence claim, a plaintiff must prove that he was owed a duty by the defendant, the defendant breached such duty, the plaintiff was injured, and the defendant’s breach proximately caused the injuries. Even if all elements of negligence are proven, a plaintiff will be completely barred from recovery if the defendant establishes that the plaintiff was contributorily negligent.

Maryland Plaintiff Allowed Damages Despite Negligence in Multi-Car Accident Case

September 1, 2021 | by Foran & Foran, P.A.

Generally, a car accident victim may seek compensation from the negligent driver for injuries. In Maryland, however, a person may be barred from recovering damages if their own negligence contributed to the accident. In a July 29, 2021 case, the Court of Special Appeals considered whether a defendant could assert the defenses of contributory negligence or assumption of the risk to bar recovery in two successive automobile collisions.

The plaintiff in the case was driving in the left lane of the highway when the defendant, who was in the middle lane, attempted to enter the left lane. The defendant did not see the plaintiff’s vehicle, however, and collided with the side of it. The plaintiff stopped on the left shoulder of the highway, with part of his vehicle remaining on the road. The defendant pulled over immediately behind him. As they exchanged information, a third car traveling in the left lane stopped abruptly in order to avoid striking their vehicles. A fourth vehicle rear-ended the third car, causing it to strike the defendant, who was outside her vehicle.

The plaintiff sued the defendant and the driver of the fourth vehicle, and the defendant asserted counterclaims. Neither party disputed that the plaintiff was solely negligent in causing the first accident. With respect to the second accident, a jury found both the plaintiff and defendant negligent. Based on that verdict, the circuit court ruled that the plaintiff was barred from recovering damages for the first accident, due to his contributory negligence in causing the second accident.

Maryland Court Sides with Plaintiff on Appeal in Black Ice Slip and Fall Case

August 26, 2021 | by Foran & Foran, P.A.

Black ice, sleet, and snow on untreated walkways and parking lots are a leading cause of slip and fall injuries. In a July 20, 2021 Maryland negligence case, the plaintiff claimed that she was injured after slipping and falling on black ice in the parking lot of her condominium. She brought suit against the owner and management company of her condominium complex, as well as the landscaping company they hired for snow and ice removal within the common areas of the complex.

The plaintiff alleged that on an early morning in January, she exited her condo and proceeded to walk to her car along a sidewalk that had recently been cleared of snow by the defendants. The plaintiff stated that she slipped and fell on an area of “black ice” that was not visible because it blended in with the pavement. In her suit, the plaintiff claimed that the defendants were negligent in failing to remove snow and ice, failing to use salt or de-icing chemicals, and failure to warn, among other allegations. After the lower court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland reviewed the decision on appeal.

To establish negligence in a Maryland slip-and-fall case, four elements must be proven: (1) the defendant was under a duty to protect the plaintiff from injury; (2) the defendant breached that duty; (3) an injury; and (4) that the injury was the proximate result of the defendant’s breach. To prove the second element of breach, the plaintiff must establish not only that a dangerous condition existed, but also that the defendant had actual or constructive knowledge of the dangerous condition, and the opportunity to remove it or give warning.

Plaintiff Alleges Negligence Claim After Garbage Truck Collision in Maryland

August 4, 2021 | by Foran & Foran, P.A.

Commercial and heavy-duty trucks can cause severe damage when they are involved in accidents with cars and smaller motor vehicles. In a July 2, 2021 Maryland injury case, the plaintiff alleged that she suffered substantial personal injuries and damages after colliding with a garbage truck. She brought a negligence action against the driver, the owner of the truck, and the operator of the trucking company that employed the driver. The case was on appeal before the Maryland Court of Special Appeals following a jury verdict in favor of the defendants.

The plaintiff in the case was driving her grandson to elementary school, traveling northbound. On the same road, a southbound garbage truck was attempting to turn across the northbound lane and onto a side street. The plaintiff testified at trial that the driver of the garbage truck failed to yield to her, and that she was unable to avoid hitting the back of the truck as it turned across her lane of traffic. The driver testified that he crossed the road when the plaintiff was approximately a quarter mile away, and that he believed the plaintiff was speeding and appeared distracted.

At the start of trial, the plaintiff moved to preclude the defendants’ expert from testifying. The court denied the motion and allowed the expert to testify that in his opinion, if the plaintiff was driving 45 mph, she would have had ample time to see the truck and stop to avoid a collision. After the jury found in favor of the defendants, the plaintiff appealed on grounds that the disclosure of the expert’s opinion was untimely.