Personal Injury

Maryland Court Holds Landowner Is Not Immune from Liability for ATV Accident

May 27, 2020 | by Foran & Foran, P.A.

As a general rule, negligent landowners are liable to their guests for personal injuries caused by a dangerous condition on their property. Maryland law allows few exceptions to this general rule, one of which is under its Recreational Use Statute. In an April 29, 2020 Maryland personal injury case, the Court of Special Appeals considered whether the statute relieved a defendant of liability after the plaintiff suffered catastrophic injuries on his property.

The defendant in the case had constructed several all-terrain vehicle (ATV) courses on the property. The land was not open to the public, and was used primarily by the defendant to store excavating equipment from his construction company and deposit dirt from construction sites. However, the defendant hosted an event on the property for family and friends, including the plaintiff, and invited them to ride ATVs and dirt bikes. While traversing one of the courses on the ATV, the plaintiff was thrown over the handlebars. As a result of the accident, the plaintiff suffered a spinal injury that rendered him a quadriplegic.

The plaintiff sued the defendant for negligence, alleging that the accident occurred because of the defective design of the ATV course. The circuit court eventually granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant, concluding that he was immune under Maryland’s Recreational Use Statute. The issue was then brought before the Court of Special Appeals.

Maryland Court Finds Plaintiff Timely Filed Lawsuit Against Insurer for Underinsured Motorist Benefits

May 26, 2020 | by Foran & Foran, P.A.

In Maryland, drivers are required to have a motor vehicle insurance policy that includes uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage. This mandatory coverage protects insured drivers from paying out-of-pocket expenses for their injuries if they are involved in a motor vehicle accident caused by an uninsured or inadequately insured driver. It may also give rise to a claim against a driver’s own insurance company, as in an April 20, 2020 Maryland personal injury case.

The plaintiff in the case was involved in an automobile accident in April of 2011, in which her vehicle was rear-ended by a vehicle traveling behind her. The plaintiff’s injuries required extensive medical treatment from the date of the accident until July 2014. The driver who caused the accident had an insurance policy with a $20,000 limit per person for bodily injuries, which was not enough to cover the full amount of the plaintiff’s medical expenses. Under the plaintiff’s auto insurance policy, she was covered up to $300,000 per person for injuries caused by an uninsured or underinsured motorist.

The plaintiff collected the $20,000 policy limit settlement offer from the other driver’s insurer nearly two years after the accident. She then attempted to collect additional underinsured motorist benefits from her own insurer. The settlement negotiations went on for several years and, with her claim still pending, the plaintiff filed suit against her insurer in September of 2016. The insurance company filed a motion to dismiss, contending that her suit was barred by the three-year statute of limitations.

Maryland Plaintiff Wins Suit Against City for Injuries Caused by Open Ballpark Gate on Roadway

May 25, 2020 | by Foran & Foran, P.A.

Accidents can be caused by negligence of more than one person. In some Maryland personal injury cases, the damages are apportioned to each defendant by fault. Unfortunately, this may result in reduced damages when one of the defendants is the local government, as illustrated in an April 14, 2020 case. The plaintiff was awarded over 2.6 million in damages for personal injuries after a jury found the City and contractor negligent. However, because the City’s negligence was a superseding cause to the contractor’s negligence, the contractor was released from liability, and the damage award was reduced pursuant to the Local Government Tort Claims Act.

The facts of the case are as follows. In 2007, the City hired the contractor to restore a ball field. The project included installation of wooden bollards along the adjacent public road, with a barrier gate to allow restricted access from the roadway into the park. The project was completed in 2011. In April of 2014, the plaintiff in the case sustained severe injuries when his car collided with the barrier gate, which had swung open into the roadway. At trial, the evidence established that the gate was not constructed in conformance with the blueprints created by the architect.

In Maryland, a plaintiff must prove four elements to prevail in a claim of negligence: 1) the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty to conform to a certain standard of care; 2) the defendant breached this duty; 3) actual damage to the plaintiff; and 4) causation. The City is generally allowed immunity for governmental and discretionary acts, such as the maintenance of a public park. However, a municipality has a private proprietary obligation to maintain its streets, as well as the sidewalks, footways and the areas contiguous to them, in a reasonably safe condition.

Maryland Appeals Court Affirms Jury Verdict in Favor of Plaintiff Injured in Hotel Accident

May 23, 2020 | by Foran & Foran, P.A.

After a person is injured in an accident, it may be difficult or impossible in some cases to determine the exact cause of the accident. However, if direct evidence of negligence is unavailable, the plaintiff may be able to assert a negligence claim based on res ipsa loquitur. In an April 8, 2020 Maryland personal injury case, the plaintiff won her negligence suit against a hotel management company by applying the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. The defendant appealed the jury verdict and the Maryland Court of Special Appeals reviewed the issue of res ipsa loquitur.

The plaintiff in the case had been staying in an extended-stay suite at a hotel managed by the defendant. One night, as the plaintiff was in the kitchen, the cabinet over the sink wholly detached from the wall, falling on the plaintiff and pinning her against the counter. She testified that, immediately following the accident, she had symptoms that included vomiting, loss of balance, headaches, and difficulty speaking, which continued for months thereafter. As a result of these symptoms, the plaintiff suffered multiple falls and was unable to return to work.

The plaintiff subsequently brought suit against the defendant, basing her negligence claim on res ipsa loquitur. The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur allows the jury to infer negligence on the part of a defendant from the facts surrounding the injury, even though those facts do not show the exact cause or precise manner in which the defendant was negligent. Generally, res ipsa loquitur applies in situations where direct evidence as to the cause of the accident is unavailable, or where it rests exclusively with the defendant.

Car Accident Victim Challenges Maryland’s Cap on Non-Economic Damages

May 20, 2020 | by Foran & Foran, P.A.

Highway collisions involving commercial rigs or semi-trucks frequently cause life-threatening, and even fatal, injuries to people who are riding in passenger cars. While negligent truck drivers and their employers may be held liable for the full amount of economic damages suffered by the victims, compensation for pain and suffering and non-economic damages is limited under Maryland law. The plaintiff in a March 18, 2020 Maryland car accident case challenged the state’s cap on non-economic damages, arguing before the Court of Special Appeals that the cap was unconstitutional.

The plaintiff in the case was driving on a Maryland highway when the defendant crossed the center median strip and struck her vehicle head on. At the time of the collision, the defendant was driving a commercial vehicle for his employer, which was also named as a defendant in the lawsuit. The plaintiff sustained catastrophic injuries as a result of the accident and underwent multiple surgeries in order to save her life and her arm. Thereafter, the plaintiff began a significant and life-changing recovery process, requiring near continuous medical care and psychological treatment for the trauma.

It was determined that the truck driver was intoxicated at the time of the collision, and that his employer was aware of his prior drunk driving charges. After a trial, the jury awarded the plaintiff over $314,000 for medical expenses, $2.5 million for non-economic damages, and $3 million for punitive damages against the employer. The trial court, in accordance with Maryland law, reduced the non-economic damages to $830,000. On appeal, the plaintiff solely challenged the constitutionality of Maryland’s statutory cap on non-economic damages.

Maryland Plaintiff Wins on Appeal in Slip and Fall Case Against Shopping Center

May 19, 2020 | by Foran & Foran, P.A.

Under Maryland premises liability law, a property owner generally owes a duty of care to most people who are on their property. The extent of that duty is largely determined by the legal status of that person and reason for being on the property. This can make a difference in the outcome of a Maryland personal injury case, as illustrated in a February 20, 2020 appeal.

The plaintiff in the case was an active septuagenarian, who typically walked her dog two or three times per day through a shopping center and business park owned by the defendant. One day, while on her usual route, the plaintiff suffered a fall in the parking lot. The impact shattered the bones in her right knee and elbow.

The plaintiff filed a negligence action against the defendant. In her complaint, she alleged that she tripped over a thin metal rod that was projecting out of the surface of the asphalt parking lot. The lower court concluded that the plaintiff was a bare licensee on the property, as she did not intend to purchase anything from the shopping center, and as such, the defendant was not liable for her injury. After the circuit court dismissed her case, the plaintiff appealed the issue to the Maryland Court of Special Appeals, arguing that she was an implied invitee.

Maryland Jury Awards $1.8 Million to Plaintiff Injured from Lead Paint Exposure

May 18, 2020 | by Foran & Foran, P.A.

Property owners, as well as other businesses and individuals, may generally be held liable for a personal injury caused by their negligence. In a February 24, 2020 lead paint case, the plaintiff succeeded on her Maryland personal injury claim against the owner of the home in which she lived. The defendant subsequently filed an appeal for review by the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland.

The defendant in the case was formerly in the business of purchasing and leasing rental properties. In 1994, the plaintiff’s mother moved into a house owned by the defendant, which he claimed had been completely renovated. The plaintiff had lived at the property with her mother from her birth in 1997 until 1998, when they moved out. During their stay, the plaintiff’s mother testified that she saw chipped, peeling, and flaking paint throughout the house and in places accessible to the plaintiff. Approximately two months before they moved out, the plaintiff was tested for lead, and the results indicated elevated levels of lead in her blood.

When she turned 20, the plaintiff filed a negligence suit against the defendant, alleging personal injuries caused by the lead paint exposure. After finding that the defendant was negligent, the jury awarded the plaintiff $800,000 in non-economic damages and $1 million dollars in economic damages. On appeal, one of the defendant’s arguments was that there was insufficient evidence that the property had contained lead paint.

Maryland Plaintiff Claims Water Leak Caused Accident in Negligence Suit Against City

May 17, 2020 | by Foran & Foran, P.A.

While a significant number of motor vehicle collisions are caused by careless drivers, negligence on the part of non-drivers may play a role in causing a car accident. In a February 18, 2020 case, the plaintiff filed a Maryland car accident case against the City after losing control of her vehicle on the road. The plaintiff alleged that the accident was caused by black ice or water from a leaking fire hydrant, for which the City was responsible. After the circuit court ruled that the City was entitled to summary judgment, the plaintiff brought an appeal before the Court of Special Appeals.

The plaintiff in the case was driving home from the store on a cold morning, traveling around 30-35 mph. A car pulled in front of her, and she applied her brakes. At that moment, the plaintiff lost control of the vehicle, and it began sliding and turning. The vehicle then hit the sidewalk, causing it to flip on its side. The plaintiff was able to call 911 while trapped inside, and the paramedics arrived to remove her from the vehicle. In her lawsuit against the City, the plaintiff alleged that water leaking from a fire hydrant had frozen on the roadway. The circuit court, however, held that she failed to produce evidence that water or ice or some other defect was the cause of her accident.

In Maryland, a plaintiff must establish four elements to state a claim of negligence: a duty owed to him or her, a breach of that duty, a legally cognizable causal relationship between the breach of the duty and the harm suffered, and damages. Generally, a municipality owes a duty to pedestrians and drivers to make its public streets and sidewalks reasonably safe for passage. When a person is injured because a municipality failed to maintain its streets, the municipality may be held liable only if it had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition that caused the injury.

Maryland Pedestrian Struck by Police Car Prevails on Appeal in Personal Injury Claim

May 11, 2020 | by Foran & Foran, P.A.

When a pedestrian is struck by a motor vehicle, it can result in serious or life-threatening injuries to the person on foot. In a February 14, 2020 opinion, the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland reviewed an appeal involving a Maryland pedestrian accident. After being hit by a patrol car, the plaintiff had filed a Maryland negligence claim against the police officer driving the vehicle and the County. The case went to trial, in which the jury found in favor of the plaintiff and awarded him damages. The defendants brought the instant appeal.

The accident occurred as the police officer was pursuing another vehicle for a moving traffic violation. When the officer turned the corner of an intersection at a high rate of speed, he lost control of his police cruiser. The cruiser skidded over the median, through the intersection, and off the road, where it struck two telephone poles and landed in a ravine. The plaintiff was walking home from work, near the telephone poles, when he was struck by the police car and knocked unconscious.

In a Maryland negligence action, the plaintiff has the burden of proof to establish the duty of the defendant based on the applicable standard of care, breach of that duty, causation that relates that breach to the plaintiff’s injury, and damages. On appeal, the defendants argued that the plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence at trial to support the jury verdict in his favor.

Maryland Court Reviews Whether Police Chase Caused Dirt Bike Accident in Negligence Case

May 9, 2020 | by Foran & Foran, P.A.

Motorcycle and dirt bike riders can suffer life-threatening injuries when they are involved in a Maryland motor vehicle collision. In a February 6, 2020 case, the plaintiff was seriously injured in a dirt bike accident while being pursued by a police cruiser. He brought a negligence claim against the officer and other defendants to recover damages for personal injuries. When the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, the plaintiff filed an appeal with the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland.

The defendant in the case was a police officer working secondary employment as a security guard at an apartment complex. He observed the plaintiff’s cousin driving a dirt bike with the plaintiff, riding as a passenger, through the apartment complex. Believing their dirt bike matched the description of a bike that had been reported stolen, the defendant approached them. The plaintiff’s cousin sped away from the defendant and out of the apartment complex. The defendant pursued them in his police cruiser onto the main road. The defendant alleged that he did not witness the accident involving the plaintiff and his cousin, but came upon it after it had happened.

A Maryland negligence claim requires four elements: a duty owed to the plaintiff, breach of that duty, causation, and injury. The trial court had dismissed the plaintiff’s negligence claim in part due to the lack of proximate causation. On appeal, the plaintiff argued that the officer’s conduct was the proximate cause of the accident because he had chased the dirt bike despite an obvious error that it was stolen, and because his pursuit on public roads violated police policy.