Personal Injury

Pedestrian Struck by Car in Store Parking Lot Brings Maryland Negligence Claim Against Driver

April 15, 2018 | by Foran & Foran, P.A.

Pedestrians can suffer serious and life-long injuries in Maryland car accidents, even when traveling at a low speed. In an October 3, 2017 case, a plaintiff was struck by a car as she walked from the parking lot toward the entrance of a grocery store, resulting in a broken knee. On the night of the accident, it was dark and rainy, and the plaintiff was wearing black clothes and carrying a black umbrella. She walked toward the crosswalk after looking both ways, and she was then struck by a car. The plaintiff subsequently brought a Maryland negligence claim against the driver of the vehicle.

The case went to trial, and although the jury found both parties negligent, it also found that the defendant had the last clear chance to avoid the injury and awarded the plaintiff damages for her medical expenses, lost wages, and pain and suffering. The defendant moved the court to enter a judgment in favor of him, notwithstanding the jury verdict. The trial court granted the motion, finding the evidence on the issue of last clear chance was insufficient, and the plaintiff appealed to the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland.

On appeal, the plaintiff argued that the trial court erred in granting a judgment for the defendant because the evidence was sufficient to find that the defendant had failed to avail himself of the last clear chance to avoid the collision, and secondly, the contributory negligence instruction was erroneous and prejudicial. The court first explained that the doctrine of last clear chance generally requires a sequential, fresh opportunity for the defendant to avoid the plaintiff’s injury. While the court admitted it strained to find evidence of such a fresh opportunity, it did not definitively answer the question, choosing instead to focus on the dispositive issue of contributory negligence.

Maryland Court Determines Whether Plaintiff Assumed Risk of Icy Parking Lot in Negligence Case

April 15, 2018 | by Foran & Foran, P.A.

Slip and fall claims often involve nuanced issues, and plaintiffs may benefit from the representation of an experienced Maryland premises liability attorney in such cases. In an October 11, 2017 opinion, the Court of Special Appeals reviewed a Maryland negligence claim brought by the plaintiff against her condominium association after she slipped and fell on ice in the parking lot of the building. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiff had assumed the risk of injury by walking on obviously visible ice next to her car. After the trial court granted the defendants’ motion, the plaintiff appealed to the higher court.

In February 2014, a series of snowstorms covered the area with 18 inches of snow and sleet. After the storms subsided, the parking lot of the plaintiff’s condominium building was plowed. However, a foot of snow had been pushed behind the plaintiff’s vehicle. The plaintiff emailed the defendants about the problem, but two days later, the snow remained piled around her vehicle. The plaintiff paid a neighbor to dig out her car so that she could drive to the store. When he finished, the plaintiff approached the driver side door of her vehicle, slipped, and fell. The plaintiff fractured her forearm in the fall and underwent two surgeries as a result.

In Maryland, “assumption of the risk” is an affirmative defense that completely bars a plaintiff’s recovery. The defense is grounded on the theory that a plaintiff who voluntarily consents, either expressly or impliedly, to exposure to a known risk cannot later sue for damages incurred from exposure to that risk. To establish the defense, a defendant must prove that the plaintiff had knowledge of the risk of the danger, the plaintiff appreciated that risk, and the plaintiff voluntarily confronted the risk of danger. Maryland courts assess whether a plaintiff had knowledge and appreciation of the risk using an objective standard. Accordingly, when it is clear that a person of normal intelligence in the position of the plaintiff must have understood the danger, the issue is for the court to decide.

Maryland Court Considers Plaintiff’s Contributory Negligence in Motor Vehicle Accident Case

April 14, 2018 | by Foran & Foran, P.A.

Maryland law holds every person responsible for their negligent actions, which may lead to harsh results for those who have been injured in Maryland car accidents. In an October 5, 2017 case, the Court of Special Appeals reviewed an injury claim arising out of a head-on motor vehicle accident. The plaintiff in the case was driving southbound when the defendant attempted to make a left turn. The defendant’s vehicle struck the plaintiff’s vehicle on the driver’s side, causing it to flip. The plaintiff suffered significant injuries in the accident, including two broken legs. He brought suit against the driver of the other vehicle, alleging negligence.

At trial, the primary issue for the jury was whether the plaintiff’s speed contributed to the accident. The speed limit on the road was 40 miles per hour. The plaintiff testified that he believed he was driving 45 miles per hour, but he admitted that he typically drove with the flow of traffic and that he was not paying attention to his speedometer.

The defendant contended that the plaintiff’s actual speed was much higher and supported his argument with an accident reconstruction engineer. The expert presented a series of calculations that indicated the plaintiff was likely traveling at a rate of at least 60 miles per hour. The expert explained that if the plaintiff had been traveling at the speed limit, the defendant would have cleared the intersection before the plaintiff reached the point of collision. The jury ultimately returned a verdict finding that the defendant was negligent but also finding that the plaintiff was contributorily negligent and was therefore barred from recovery.

Plaintiff Awarded Past Medical Expenses from Car Accident in Maryland Negligence Case

April 13, 2018 | by Foran & Foran, P.A.

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.

Maryland Plaintiff on Delivery Bike Brings Suit Against Driver of Vehicle that Struck Him

April 13, 2018 | by Foran & Foran, P.A.

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.

Maryland Car Accident Victim Sues Her Insurer for Uninsured Motorist Coverage

April 3, 2018 | by Foran & Foran, P.A.

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.

Maryland Plaintiff Wins Case Against County, Police Department After Violent Arrest

March 22, 2018 | by Foran & Foran, P.A.

A Maryland personal injury claim can arise out of careless or even intentional conduct. Recently, a Maryland plaintiff won his case against a county and police department for acts that occurred during his arrest. The plaintiff brought claims of battery, assault, malicious prosecution, false arrest, false imprisonment, and constitutional violations, as well as intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligence. After a trial, the jury determined that the police officers involved in the arrest were liable on some of the claims and awarded the plaintiff a total of $600,000. In an August 15, 2017 opinion, the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland considered the government’s argument that the award should be capped pursuant to the Local Government Tort Claims Act.

The Local Government Tort Claims Act applies to the tortious acts or omissions of local government employees, committed within the scope of their employment and without actual malice. Under the Act, local government employees have qualified immunity from liability for such acts or omissions. The Act requires the local government to provide a legal defense for its employees in these types of actions, and it shifts liability to the local government to cover any judgment against an employee.

The Act also establishes limits on the government’s liability, capping the amount of damages that may be paid. Specifically, the Act limits the liability of the local government to $200,000 per individual claim, and $500,000 per total claims that arise from the same occurrence. On appeal, the government argued that the plaintiff asserted only one set of aggregate, operative facts, giving rise to one individual claim under the Act. The primary question for the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, therefore, was whether each of several causes of action alleged by the plaintiff constituted one individual claim.

Maryland Gunshot Victim Files Negligence Claim Against Security Guard’s Employer

March 22, 2018 | by Foran & Foran, P.A.

To succeed on a Maryland injury claim, the plaintiff must prove all of the required elements, including that the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty of care. In a July 12, 2017 case, the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland considered whether an employer owed a duty to someone who was shot by its employee. The plaintiffs in the case sued the defendant-employer for the actions of its employee under a negligence theory. After the lower court granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss, the plaintiffs appealed.

The defendant in the case was a security company that employed a guard to pick up cash deposits in an armored vehicle. After a group of robbers stole money from the guard and drove away, the guard fired shots at their car, hitting the rear tire and striking one of the robbers. The robbers continued driving for another mile before seeing the plaintiff by his parked car. The robbers jumped out of their vehicle, shot the plaintiff twice in the head, and stole his car. In his lawsuit, the plaintiff alleged that the security company owed him a duty of care to protect him from the actions of the robbers because its employee had shot at the robbers’ vehicle, creating a previously non-existent risk of harm to the plaintiff.

To prove a negligence claim in Maryland, the plaintiff must establish that the defendant was under a duty to protect the plaintiff from injury, the defendant breached that duty, and the plaintiff suffered an injury as a result of the defendant’s breach of duty. Generally, a private person is under no special duty to protect another person from criminal acts by a third person. There are three exceptions, however: (1) if the defendant has control over the conduct of the third party; (2) if there is a special relationship between the defendant and the third person or between the defendant and the plaintiff; or (3) if there is a statute or ordinance that is designed to protect a specific class of people.

Maryland Car Accident Victim Seeks Damages from Driver Who Ran a Red Light

March 22, 2018 | by Foran & Foran, P.A.

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.

Maryland Court Considers Plaintiff’s Appeal in Negligence Claim Against Transportation Company

August 14, 2017 | by Foran & Foran, P.A.

The law holds people and businesses responsible for injuries caused by their negligent conduct. In a July 19, 2017 case, the Court of Special Appeals considered a Maryland injury claim brought on appeal by a plaintiff against a bus transportation business. The plaintiff filed the appeal after a jury found in favor of the defendant.

The victim in the case was a double amputee who required the use of a wheelchair for mobility. The victim had hired the defendant’s bus transportation company to transport him to his home. As the driver attempted to load the victim into the transport bus, his wheelchair rolled backwards and fell off the bus’ lift. The fall sent the victim crashing to the ground and broke his neck. The victim spent the next few months in the hospital before passing away from his injuries. The victim’s estate filed suit against the driver and the bus transportation company, alleging negligence. After a trial, the jury found that the victim’s injuries were not results of the driver’s negligence.

On appeal, the plaintiff argued that the trial court erred by striking the testimony of the plaintiff’s expert. In Maryland, before allowing expert testimony, a trial court must make the following determinations: (1) whether the witness is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, (2) whether the expert testimony is appropriate on the particular subject, and (3) whether a sufficient factual basis exists to support the expert testimony. With respect to the third element, an expert’s opinion testimony must be based on an adequate factual basis so that it does not amount to conjecture, speculation, or incompetent evidence. They cannot simply hazard guesses, however educated, based on their credentials.