Even if a legal concept provides for an unfortunate outcome, an experienced car accident attorney will be prepared to argue persuasively in your favor.  In an April 20, 2018 Maryland car accident case, the Court of Appeals of Maryland considered whether the doctrine of imputed negligence would apply to prevent the injured plaintiff from recovering damages from the defendant.  After the lower court entered judgment in favor of the defendant, Maryland’s highest court had the opportunity to decide whether the application of the doctrine should be overruled in the context of owner-passenger car accident cases.

The plaintiff and her husband drove to a restaurant to pick up their carry-out meal.  The plaintiff’s husband was driving the vehicle, which was solely registered in the plaintiff’s name.  The plaintiff was riding in the passenger seat.  The husband parked across two handicapped spots behind the defendant’s truck and went inside the restaurant to get their dinner.  As the plaintiff waited in the car, the defendant backed up his truck out of his parking space into her vehicle.  The plaintiff suffered injuries to her shoulder as a result of the accident.

Under the doctrine of imputed negligence, the owner of a vehicle who allows someone else to drive while remaining inside as a passenger may be held liable for any negligence of the driver.  It is not based on any negligence of the owner-passenger; instead, it is a form of vicarious liability.  Since the plaintiff’s husband was found negligent by parking perpendicular to a handicapped space behind the defendant’s vehicle, his negligence was imputed to the plaintiff.  The plaintiff was therefore barred from recovering damages under the doctrine of contributory negligence.

Continue reading

Maryland law generally allows victims of negligence to pursue compensation from those responsible.  In some cases, however, remedies may be limited or damages capped.  In an April 12, 2018 Maryland wrongful death case, the Court of Appeals considered whether a multi-million dollar jury verdict should be reduced, and which defendants should be responsible for the judgment.

The case arose out of the murder of a Maryland state prisoner by another prisoner while they were both in State custody.  The parents of the victim brought suit against the State of Maryland and several of the correctional officers supervising the prisoners.

After a trial, the jury returned a verdict against the State based on its finding that certain correctional officers were negligent, and a verdict against one of the defendants who was found grossly negligent.  In total, the jury awarded approximately $18.5 million in noneconomic damages to the plaintiffs.  However, the trial court reduced the awards due to Maryland’s statutory caps, and it also denied the plaintiffs’ motion to include the State in the judgment against the one defendant found grossly negligent.  These decisions were appealed and became the major issues in the Court of Appeals case.

Continue reading

In Maryland, careless landlords may be liable for the damage caused by their negligence, including some lead-based paint injuries.  In an April 2, 2018 case, the plaintiff filed a Maryland personal injury lawsuit against his landlords for increased blood lead levels and developmental disabilities suffered as results of exposure to lead-based paint while living in the defendants’ apartment building.  After a six-day trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff and awarded damages in the amount of approximately 1.6 million dollars.

The defendants then filed a motion for the court to enter a judgment in their favor or, in the alternative, for a new trial, and they also moved to reduce the non-economic damages.  The trial court reduced the non-economic damages to $1,173,000 but denied the defendants’ other motions.  The defendants appealed to the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland.

The plaintiff in the case had lived in the defendants’ property from the time he was born in 1997.  His blood was tested eight times for lead between 1998 and 2012, and tests revealed elevated blood levels four times while he was residing at the property.  After the lawsuit was filed, the property was tested for lead-based paint.  An expert report revealed lead paint in the door and window casing of the property.  On appeal, one of the defendants’ arguments was that the evidence was not sufficient to support the verdict.

Continue reading

Certain kinds of injuries may not be discovered for many years.  In many of these cases, Maryland law provides relief to the victims by allowing them to bring a negligence claim once they realize they have been injured.  In a March 28, 2018 case, the plaintiff filed a Maryland personal injury case against a manufacturing corporation, among others, alleging that he was exposed to asbestos contained in components it manufactured and supplied in 1970.  After his death, his estate was substituted as a party.  The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of the employer, and the Court of Special Appeals affirmed.  The matter was then brought before the Court of Appeals of Maryland.

The plaintiff in the case worked as a steamfitter.  In 1970, he worked on steam piping that connected two turbines, which were installed at the same time.  The turbines were insulated with materials containing asbestos.  In 2013, the plaintiff was diagnosed with mesothelioma and filed suit the next year against multiple defendants, including the defendant who was responsible for constructing the turbines.  The defendant argued that the plaintiff’s claims were barred by the statute of repose as currently enacted.  The plaintiff responded that his claims arose in 1970, prior to the enactment of the current statute, and as a result, it could not apply retroactively to his claims.

A statute of repose is essentially a deadline cutting off any exceptions that allow plaintiffs to bring suit after the ordinary deadline under the statute of limitations has passed.  The discovery rule is one such exception that allows a plaintiff to bring an action three years from the date he knew or reasonably should have known of the wrong.

Continue reading

The lasting effects of lead exposure can be difficult to manage, and even more so when a child has elevated levels of lead in their system.  If the lead exposure was due to the negligence of another person, such as a property owner or landlord, the victim may be able to recover compensation for their injures in a Maryland personal injury claim.  In a March 14, 2018 lead-based paint case, the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland reviewed whether the lower court erred by granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants.  The issue of causation was complicated by the fact that the plaintiff was born with cognitive impairments.

While living at a property owned by the defendants, the plaintiff was diagnosed with elevated blood-lead levels.  However, the plaintiff had been born with a certain medical condition, which caused autism-like cognitive impairments.  This complicated the issue, since the cognitive effects of the plaintiff’s pre-existing condition were also the same sort of impairments that can be caused by childhood exposure to lead.  The plaintiff’s mother brought a lawsuit on his behalf against the defendants then, but the claim was dismissed without prejudice.  In an unusual process, the court left open the possibility that the plaintiff could bring the claim again as an adult.  The case at issue was the plaintiff’s second lawsuit against the defendants.

The plaintiff alleged that the additional exposure to lead at the defendants’ property aggravated his medical condition, resulting in a diminished quality of life and cognitive functioning.  He had the support of a medical causation expert, who opined that the lead exposure had aggravated the plaintiff’s existing conditions and reduced his cognition.  Furthermore, the expert stated that the lead exposure substantially contributed to the additional loss of the plaintiff’s cognitive ability, constituting an injury over and above the condition with which the plaintiff was born.  After the lower court granted the defendants’ summary judgment motion, the plaintiff appealed.

Continue reading

People who have been injured in a retail store or other business may be able to recover their medical expenses and other losses if the accident was caused by negligence.  In a March 14, 2018 Maryland premises liability case, the Court of Special Appeals reviewed an injury claim filed by a plaintiff against a retail clothing store.  After the circuit court had granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant, the plaintiff appealed.

The plaintiff in the case was injured when she tripped and fell in the defendant’s store.  She alleged that her flip flop sandal became caught on an unsecured transition strip of rubber, which separated a carpeted section of the store from an uncarpeted aisle between departments.  The plaintiff contended that the transition strip was damaged and detached from the ground, creating a dangerous condition for store patrons.

At the time of the accident, the plaintiff was an invitee of the defendant’s store.  In Maryland, there is an assumption that the defendant, a retail establishment, will exercise reasonable care to ascertain the condition of the premises.  In light of this assumption, the defendant has a duty to warn invitees of known hidden dangers, a duty to inspect, and a duty to take reasonable precautions against foreseeable dangers.  In a premises liability case, the evidence must show not only that a dangerous condition existed, but also that the defendant had actual or constructive knowledge of it, and that that knowledge was gained in sufficient time to give the defendant the opportunity to remove it or to warn the plaintiff.

Continue reading

A skilled Maryland car accident attorney will thoroughly investigate the facts of an accident in order to support the viability of a client’s negligence claim.  As illustrated in a February 20, 2018 decision by the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, the details were crucial in reversing the dismissal of a plaintiff’s car accident case.

The case arose out of a December 2008 motor vehicle collision, which occurred within the federal enclave of a military base.  The defendant was driving a government vehicle when she struck the plaintiff’s SUV.   At the time of the accident, the defendant was on active duty.

In November 2009, the plaintiff filed a claim with the appropriate federal agency, as required before bringing a lawsuit in federal court against the United States.  The matter was transferred to another agency, and the plaintiff subsequently filed her case in federal court in 2011.  The federal court dismissed the case, finding that the defendant was not acting within the scope of her employment because she was going to a medical appointment.  The plaintiff then filed suit in Maryland circuit court against the defendant and the plaintiff’s own insurance carrier in 2013.  The circuit court dismissed the case, ruling that the plaintiff’s claim was barred by the statute of limitations.

Continue reading

It is important to be aware of changes in Maryland motor vehicle insurance laws that may affect your coverage with your automobile insurer.  A January 31, 2018 Maryland car accident case before the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland illustrates the difficulties that may arise if coverage expectations are not met.

In the case, the plaintiff brought suit against her own insurance company for uninsured motorist (UM) benefits after she was involved in a car accident with an uninsured driver and suffered injuries.  The insurance company denied her claim, arguing that her UM coverage was limited to $75,000, despite a $300,000 liability limit on her policy.

Under Maryland’s motor vehicle insurance laws, unless waived, the amount of UM coverage provided under a car insurance policy must equal the amount of liability coverage provided under the policy. The statute requiring equal coverage was effective only for motor vehicle insurance policies issued or delivered on or after October 1, 1992.  To waive equality coverage, the first named insured must sign a statement in writing to that effect.

Continue reading

Semi-trucks and other large commercial vehicles can cause serious damage, injuries, and even death upon a collision with a passenger car.  A February 12, 2018 wrongful death case before the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland arose after a woman died in a car accident involving a cement truck.  The victim’s family brought a personal injury and wrongful death lawsuit against the cement truck company, arguing that it was overloaded.  When the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant, the plaintiffs appealed.

At the time of the accident, the victim was driving on a two-way road while the surface was wet with rain and snow.  As she attempted to give way to an oncoming emergency vehicle, she lost control of her car and crossed over the center line into oncoming traffic.  Her vehicle was struck by a loaded cement mixer delivery truck owned by the defendant.  The cement truck, weighing more than 60,000 pounds, was determined to be over the allowable weight limit of 10,000 pounds for the road on which it was traveling.  The driver was also going about five miles over the posted speed limit.

The trial court granted summary judgment on the basis that the victim’s vehicle crossing into the oncoming traffic lane was the proximate cause of the accident, implicitly finding that the defendant’s actions did not cause the accident.  The plaintiffs argued that the defendant’s violation of the weight restriction was evidence of its negligence, and they alleged that the violation contributed to the victim’s injuries and death.

Continue reading

When pursuing a lawsuit for personal injury damages arising out of a Maryland car accident, the plaintiff must prove the amount of loss caused by the defendant’s negligence. The defense can present its own evidence and witnesses to rebut the plaintiff’s proof. In a February 2, 2017 decision by the Court of Appeals of Maryland, the primary issue was whether the trial court erred by allowing the jury to view medical records used by an expert witness in giving his opinion.

The plaintiff in the case was a passenger in a vehicle that was rear-ended by the defendant. Over the next three years, the plaintiff was treated for a variety of health issues, including her shoulder. She filed suit against the defendant, alleging that the defendant’s negligent driving caused her injuries. While a rear-end accident is almost always caused by negligent driving, the main focus at trial was whether all of the plaintiff’s alleged injuries were caused by the accident.

During the trial, the defendant presented his expert witness, an orthopedic surgeon who had examined the plaintiff pursuant to the litigation. The expert testified that, based on his examination of the plaintiff and a review of her medical records, he believed many of the plaintiff’s injuries were not caused by the accident but instead were results of preexisting or unrelated conditions. Although the plaintiff had not introduced some of her prior medical records into evidence, the defendant moved to enter them into evidence. The trial court ruled that since the expert had relied on them in forming his opinion, the records could be admitted into evidence and shared with the jury.

Continue reading