Articles Posted in Auto Accidents

Following a Maryland car accident, the passenger of the vehicle that was rear-ended sued the other driver for negligence. The case went to trial. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, awarding her damages for all of her past medical bills and $650 for pain and suffering. The plaintiff appealed the judgment amount for non-economic damages, arguing that she was prejudiced by the admission of her medical records into evidence. The Court of Special Appeals of Maryland published its decision in a June 28, 2017 opinion.

On the day of the accident, the plaintiff was sitting in the rear passenger seat of a small SUV, while her son was driving. As they came to a complete stop in heavy traffic on the exit ramp, the SUV was rear-ended by a vehicle being driven by the defendant. Although police and ambulances were called to the scene, the plaintiff did not seek medical treatment. On the next morning, she went to the emergency room with low back pain and was released the same day. A week after the accident, the plaintiff sought treatment from a chiropractor. Three years later, she underwent shoulder surgery for a torn rotator cuff, which her doctor testified was caused by the accident. A doctor for the defendant examined the plaintiff pursuant to the litigation and reviewed her medical records. Based on the physical examination and records, the doctor testified that the plaintiff did not sustain her shoulder injury in the accident. The plaintiff’s medical records were admitted into evidence.

On appeal, the plaintiff argued that the trial court erred by admitting the medical records into evidence and that she was prejudiced by their admission. The records at issue were admitted under an evidentiary rule concerning the bases of opinion testimony by experts. The rule provides that facts or data upon which the expert relies may be disclosed to the jury if they are determined to be trustworthy and necessary to illuminate the testimony. The court explained that there is no significant difference between disclosure and admission of a writing under the rule. Therefore, if it satisfies this rule, the court has discretion to allow otherwise inadmissible evidence in order to explain the factual basis for an expert’s opinion. Upon request, the court must instruct the jury that the facts or data may only be used to explain how the expert reached an opinion.

Bicyclists are particularly vulnerable to injuries arising out of motor vehicle collisions, many of which are caused by negligence.  In a July 11, 2017 case, the Court of Special Appeals reviewed a personal injury claim filed by a bicyclist against a driver following a Maryland car accident.  The plaintiff was employed as a delivery person by a sandwich chain and was in the process of making a delivery via bicycle when he collided with a van driven by the defendant.  As a result of the collision, the plaintiff suffered injuries to his head, neck, and knee.  The plaintiff alleged that the defendant’s negligence caused his injuries.

In the case, the defendant had slowed her van to turn left into a parking spot across the street.  The plaintiff hit the back left window of her van while on his bike, shattering the glass.  The plaintiff was not wearing a helmet when the accident occurred.  After a trial, the jury returned a verdict finding that both parties had been negligent.  The plaintiff appealed the verdict, arguing that the trial court erred by admitting evidence that he was not wearing a helmet and by allowing the issue of contributory negligence to go to the jury.

On appeal, the plaintiff contended that the question of whether he was wearing a helmet was irrelevant and therefore inadmissible, since Maryland law did not require him to wear a helmet when riding a bicycle.  The appeals court agreed that Maryland law did not legally require the plaintiff to wear a helmet.  However, the court went on to find that this fact alone did not compel the conclusion that the question of whether the plaintiff was wearing a helmet was completely irrelevant.  Furthermore, the court explained that even if the question was irrelevant, at most, the trial judge’s ruling on the issue was a harmless error and would not have affected the jury’s decision.

Continue Reading ›

Fighting with an insurance company after a car accident can be frustrating and burdensome.  Accordingly, many people choose to hire a Maryland personal injury attorney to help resolve their claim and obtain payment for their losses.  As demonstrated in a February 22, 2018 case, an accident victim can bring suit against her own insurance company if it refuses coverage for a valid claim.

The plaintiff in the case was involved in a car accident with an uninsured driver and went to the hospital for medical treatment.  She notified the defendant, her insurance company, of the accident.  The defendant denied the plaintiff’s claim for uninsured motorist coverage of her medical expenses and other damages arising from the accident.  The defendant asserted that the plaintiff did not qualify as a family member covered under the policy because she was not a resident of the named insured’s household at the time of the accident.

After the denial of her claim, the plaintiff filed suit against the defendant in district court, alleging that the defendant breached the insurance contract.  She sought damages for her medical bills, pain and suffering, and car rental costs.  After a trial, the court ruled that the plaintiff was a temporary resident of the named insured’s household at the time of the accident, and as a result, she was entitled to uninsured motorist coverage under his automobile policy.  The plaintiff was awarded a judgment against the defendant for her medical bills and general damages.

Continue Reading ›

In Maryland personal injury cases, the plaintiff must prove the amount of damages caused by the defendant’s negligence.  In a July 6, 2017 case, the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland reviewed the jury’s verdict in a negligence claim arising out of a car accident.  At the trial, the defendant stipulated that he was responsible for causing the accident by running a red light.  The question for the jury was whether, and in what amount, the plaintiff was entitled to damages.  When the jury returned a verdict of zero dollars, the plaintiff brought an appeal, arguing that the court should have granted her request for a new trial.

In the case, the plaintiff was driving her car when it was struck by a vehicle operated by the defendant, who drove through a red light.  The plaintiff suffered injuries to her neck, which were treated with physical therapy and injections of anti-inflammatory medication in the months following the accident.  At trial, the testimony of the plaintiff’s doctors differed on the amount of physical therapy that was necessary after the accident, but they agreed that some treatment was reasonable and causally connected to the accident.  There was also testimony that the plaintiff had spinal problems for which she had sought treatment several months before the accident.

On appeal, the plaintiff argued that the trial court erred in refusing to grant a new trial because the verdict for the defendant was not supported by the evidence.  The plaintiff pointed to the facts that the defendant admitted responsibility for the accident and that her doctors agreed that medical treatment was necessary and causally connected to the crash.

Continue Reading ›

In an opinion issued on July 6, 2017, the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland reviewed a personal injury claim arising out of an accident between an automobile and a pedestrian. The plaintiff was attempting to cross the street when she was struck by a vehicle driven by the defendant. The plaintiff brought a negligence claim against the defendant, which proceeded to trial. Ultimately, the jury found that the defendant was negligent, but it also found that the plaintiff was contributorily negligent, thereby precluding any recovery of damages. The plaintiff subsequently appealed to the higher court.

Under the doctrine of contributory negligence, a plaintiff who fails to exercise ordinary care for his or her own safety and thus contributes proximately to his or her injury is barred from all recovery, regardless of the defendant’s primary negligence. Unfortunately for plaintiffs, it is an all-or-nothing doctrine in Maryland. As a result, if contributory negligence is found on the part of the plaintiff, it prevents the plaintiff from recovering any damages for his or her injuries, even if the defendant was also found negligent. The burden of proving contributory negligence is on the defendant, and the issue is a question of fact for the jury to resolve.

In the case, the defendant had stopped at a stop sign and started to make a left turn, when she struck the plaintiff in the middle of the crosswalk. The defendant testified that she didn’t see the plaintiff until the last moment, when she slammed on her brakes. Ordinarily, a pedestrian crossing a street within a designated crosswalk in Maryland has the right-of-way over oncoming traffic, and the driver of an approaching vehicle must come to a stop when approaching a pedestrian in a cross-walk. The pedestrian’s right-of-way, however, is not absolute, and in some circumstances, a pedestrian may be found to be contributorily negligent. In crossing a street, a pedestrian has a duty to look out for vehicles and protect herself from danger. Although there is no law that she must stop until a vehicle has passed, whether she was negligent in proceeding is a question for the jury.

Continue Reading ›

In many car accident cases, insurance companies become involved in the litigation, either in defending claims against their insureds or against themselves.  In a May 1, 2017 decision, the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland examined whether summary judgment was proper after misrepresentations made by the defendants’ insurance company caused the plaintiff to file his lawsuit outside the statute of limitations.

The action arose out of a car accident in which two of the defendants rear-ended the plaintiff’s vehicle.  The two defendants and a third roommate lived together and were all insured through the same automobile insurance company.  The roommate was not in the car at the time of the accident.  However, following the accident, the insurance company contacted the plaintiff and identified the roommate as the insured party.

During subsequent communications with the plaintiff’s counsel, the insurance company acknowledged liability and paid for the plaintiff’s property damage claims under the roommate’s policy.  When the plaintiff was unable to resolve his injury claim with the insurance company, he filed suit against the roommate.  It was at this time that in-house counsel for the insurance company disclosed to the plaintiff that the actual driver was not the roommate.  The plaintiff immediately filed an amended complaint against the two defendants, but the statute of limitations had already expired.

Continue Reading ›

Settlement negotiations can be an important part of resolving a personal injury claim against a negligent driver or insurance company.  The Court of Special Appeals of Maryland recently addressed some of the issues surrounding settlement agreements in Ward v. Lassiter (Md. Ct. Spec. App. Jan. 13, 2017).  In Ward, the underlying case arose from an automobile accident, in which the plaintiff filed suit against the defendant.  The trial date was canceled after the parties orally agreed to settle the case, but another dispute arose when the plaintiff refused to sign a written agreement.

In Ward, the plaintiff agreed to accept $7,000 during the settlement negotiations, although the specific terms of the release or indemnification were not discussed.  The defendant’s counsel emailed a proposed settlement agreement, to which the plaintiff’s attorney made several revisions before returning it.  In particular, the plaintiff’s attorney deleted a provision that released the defendant from liability for future medical expenses and changed a clause that indemnified the defendant from any cause of action by limiting it to $7,000.  The defendant did not agree to the revisions, and the parties remained at an impasse regarding the terms and language of the written settlement.

Continue Reading ›