Construction Accidents

Maryland Appeals Court Allows Plaintiff to File Amended Complaint for Construction Injury

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

A Maryland personal injury action is initiated when the plaintiff files a pleading, commonly referred to as the complaint, with the courts. If the complaint does not conform to the Maryland Rules, it may be dismissed, as in an October 20, 2021 case before the Court of Special Appeals. The plaintiff brought the appeal after the circuit court dismissed his complaint and denied his motion to file an amended complaint.

The plaintiff in the case was injured while performing his job as a construction worker. As he was using a bore for the installation of a gas pipeline, the tool caught on his foot. His foot slipped and went inside the machine, resulting in severe injuries to his foot and a partial amputation. The plaintiff filed a negligence action against multiple companies and contractors present on the job site, as well as the owner of the property, and sought damages exceeding two million dollars.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the complaint did not comply with the Maryland Rules. In particular, the defendants argued that the complaint failed to characterize the damages sought as being in excess of $75,000, asserted the same legal conclusions against all of the defendants, and failed to allege any facts establishing the liability of a specific defendant. The plaintiff opposed the motion and sought to amend the complaint, which the circuit court denied. The ruling effectively barred the plaintiff’s suit, as any re-filed action would be subject to a statue of limitations defense.

Maryland Court of Special Appeals Analyzes Roofing Contractor’s Duty of Care to Third Party in Negligence Case

September 2, 2015 | by Foran & Foran, P.A.

The Maryland Court of Special Appeals released an opinion in the case of Cash & Carry Am., Inc. v. Roof Solutions, Inc., 117 A.3d 52 (2015), providing a detailed explanation of the duty of care in a negligence action. The plaintiff in the case brought a negligence action against a contractor and subcontractor, alleging that their negligence caused a fire that damaged property belonging to his business. The question before the court was whether a roofing contractor who performs work on a structure owes a duty of care in tort to a third-party owner of personal property inside the structure. The Maryland Court of Special Appeals held that under the circumstances of the case, the roofing contractor did owe a duty of care to the third party, reversing the ruling of the lower court.

In Cash & Carry, the homeowner contracted with the defendants to replace the roof of his townhouse. A fire started on the roof when a torch used to heat tar paper ignited the wooden framework of the townhouse. The fire department put out the fire, but the water leaked into the house, damaging computers belonging to the homeowner’s business. The business brought a negligence action against the roofing contractors, seeking compensation for the damage caused by the fire. The lower court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, finding that they did not owe any legal duty to the business, which was not a party to the contract.

MRI scans can be dangerous

April 21, 2009 | by Foran & Foran, P.A.

There is increasing evidence that MRI scans could pose safety issues for consumers who use nicotine or other drug delivering patches according to the Food and Drug Administration. Apparently, small metal fragments are in several of the patches and can become heated during the scans which creates significant risks of burns. The FDA has issued several alerts about this potential complication. If you are having an MRI make sure to be very careful about any metal that has been inserted in your body from prior surgery or any foreign material attached to your body for any reason. As helpful as an MRI can be as a diagnostic tool, it can also pose significant safety risks depending on circumstances.

Medical negligence and medical devices
04/14/2009 03:01:45 PM

Several lawsuits have alleged that two medical device companies are intertwined with a doctor named in over 100 medical malpractice case. Continue Reading ›

Google and the court room

August 4, 2008 | by Foran & Foran, P.A.

With the invention of the Internet andhand held access through cell phones and PDAs, jurors are taking itupon themselves to investigate court cases on their own. Jurors areunder strict instruction to solely consider evidence presented in thecourtroom. Circuit Judge John C. Themelis of Baltimore, Marylandrecounts that a fellow judge declared a mistrial in a case where ajuror used the Internet to research a defendant’s criminal record. Local attorneys have heard stories that jurors have Googled their firm information through iPhones and other hand held devices.

When selected for a jury of any civilor criminal jury trial, the judge reads a set of instructions andclearly states, Continue Reading ›