Wrongful Death

Maryland Wrongful Death Action Filed After Collision with Over-Loaded Cement Delivery Truck

May 9, 2018 | by Foran & Foran, P.A.

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.

Plaintiffs Assert Circumstantial Evidence to Support Maryland Asbestos Lawsuit

May 7, 2018 | by Foran & Foran, P.A.

Exposure to asbestos-containing products is associated with serious illnesses such as mesothelioma and asbestosis, particularly in people who have had occupational exposure. In a November 20, 2017 wrongful death action before the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, the issue was whether the plaintiffs had produced sufficient evidence to create a question of fact for a jury to decide. After the trial court had granted a summary judgment motion in favor of the defendants, the plaintiffs appealed.

The decedent in the case had worked at a shipyard for many years as a machinist and mechanic. His duties frequently involved removing and replacing insulation, which often contained asbestos, on large commercial and military ships. The decedent filed a complaint in 2004 against the defendants, an asbestos company and an asbestos settlement trust. When he passed away in 2013, the case was amended to include a survival action claim and a wrongful death claim on behalf of his spouse and son.

The plaintiffs did not present direct evidence of the particular insulation companies that worked closely with the decedent. They relied on the inference that the sheer number of ships on which the decedent had worked in close proximity to employees with known exposure to asbestos dust, combined with evidence that the defendants had a presence at the shipyard, was sufficient to allow the case to survive a summary judgment motion.

Maryland Plaintiffs Seek Underinsured Motorist Coverage Through Victim’s Employer After Death

April 20, 2018 | by Foran & Foran, P.A.

If a negligent driver doesn’t have adequate insurance to fully compensate you for the loss you suffered in an accident, you may have to seek uninsured or underinsured coverage from your own insurance company. You can avoid some frustration by hiring an experienced Maryland car accident attorney to advance your claim and pursue damages in court upon a denial, as the plaintiffs did in a November 3, 2017 case before the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland. After their insurance company denied coverage for the wrongful death of their son, the plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against them in court.

The victim in the case was killed on the job by a motorist as he was directing traffic in a construction zone. The company for which the victim worked was insured by the defendant. The surviving family members sought to collect underinsured motor vehicle benefits from the defendant, after the motorist’s insurance coverage of $100,000 had been paid out and was exhausted. The defendant denied the claim, alleging that the employer’s policy with the defendant did not provide uninsured or underinsured coverage for its employees or their survivors.

Generally, Maryland courts will first look at the insurance policy contract to determine the rights and obligations of the parties, interpreting the plain meaning of the language. Only when the language is ambiguous may the court consider evidence outside the context of the contract.

Maryland Plaintiffs Successfully Appeal Judgment in Wrongful Death Case Against Restaurant

March 23, 2018 | by Foran & Foran, P.A.

In a Maryland wrongful death action, family members of an accident victim seek compensation for the loss of their loved one. The Court of Special Appeals of Maryland recently examined the statutory time limits to bring a wrongful death claim in a September 1, 2017 case. The decedent in the case had been repairing an HVAC unit on the roof of a Maryland restaurant when he fell 20 feet, suffering fatal injuries. The decedent’s survivors filed a wrongful death action, alleging negligence and premises liability claims against the shopping center, the property management company, and the restaurant. After the circuit court ruled that Maryland’s statute of repose barred the plaintiffs’ claims, they appealed to the higher court.

In Maryland, the statute of limitations provides that a person must file a wrongful death claim arising out of premises liability within three years of the date of accrual of the cause of action. The statute of repose, however, limits that period to no later than 20 years from the date that the defective and unsafe condition of the property was available for its intended use. The statute of repose also includes four subsections that indicate situations in which the 20-year limitation would not apply. The first subsection provides an exemption when the defendant was in actual possession and control of the property as owner, tenant, or otherwise when the injury occurred, as the defendants were in the current case. The remaining three subsections relate to certain asbestos manufacturers and suppliers. These four subsections are linked by the conjunction “or.”

The question for the court on appeal was whether the “or” should be interpreted as disjunctive, indicating four separate exceptions, or conjunctive, indicating that the defendant must be in actual possession of the property as well as meet the asbestos-related requirements provided in the other three subsections. To decide the matter, the court looked at the legislative history, prior amendments to the statute, and case law describing the purpose of the statute.

Maryland Plaintiff Files Wrongful Death Action Against Gym After Husband Suffers Heart Attack

March 23, 2018 | by Foran & Foran, P.A.

In some negligence actions, a defendant’s duty of care can arise from a law enacted to protect the plaintiff and others similarly situated. In a July 25, 2017 case, the plaintiff brought a Maryland wrongful death action against a fitness center after her husband died from cardiac arrest while playing basketball there. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant had a duty to use the automated external defibrillator (AED) that it had installed at its facility, pursuant to statutory requirements.

The decedent had been playing basketball at the defendant’s facility when he suddenly collapsed. A fitness instructor employed by the defendant began to administer CPR, while other people called 911. Although the facility had an AED that was just outside the doors of the basketball court, and despite the fact that the fitness instructor had 20 years of experience in administering life support and resuscitation measures, including the use of an AED, the fitness instructor did not retrieve the AED or ask anyone to retrieve it for her. When the paramedics arrived, they were notified of the defendant’s AED and used it on the decedent, but they were unsuccessful in resuscitating him.

To prove negligence per se, the plaintiff must show the violation of a law designed to protect a specific class of persons that includes the plaintiff, and the violation must have proximately caused the plaintiff’s injury. The primary issue before the Court of Special Appeals, therefore, was whether the Maryland statute at issue prescribed a duty of care requiring the defendant to use an AED to provide cardiac defibrillation to someone who has suffered sudden cardiac arrest.

The court first looked at the language of the statute. The statute at issue was designed to encourage the installation of AEDs in places of business and public accommodation, and ensure that the devices are operable and are used by people who are properly trained to use them. The statute requires a facility with an available AED to possess a valid certificate from the EMS Board. To obtain a certificate, the facility must qualify by meeting several requirements, which the defendant in the case had done.

Maryland Plaintiffs Proceed with Wrongful Death Action After Court Holds Statute of Limitations Tolled

August 2, 2017 | by Foran & Foran, P.A.

In many cases, the law allows for family members to pursue compensation for the death or injury of their loved one by bringing an action against those responsible. The Court of Appeals of Maryland recently examined a wrongful death action in an opinion issued on May 22, 2017. The plaintiffs in the case were the mother and the minor son of the decedent.

In 2009, the victim in the case had been shot and killed by the defendant, while he was working as the defendant’s farmhand. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant buried the victim’s remains in order to conceal his wrongdoing. In 2015, the plaintiffs filed their complaint against the defendant. After the circuit court dismissed their claims as time-barred, the plaintiffs appealed.

A wrongful death action is brought for the benefit of the surviving family members to compensate for the losses occasioned by their family member’s death. Maryland law provides that the time period for bringing a wrongful death action that accrues on behalf of a minor plaintiff is tolled during the period of minority. On appeal, the plaintiffs argued that the wrongful death action of the victim’s son was tolled during his period of minority, pursuant to this rule. The court agreed, holding that the plain language of the rule provided for the tolling of a wrongful death claim until the age of majority, from which time the wrongful death action must be filed within three years.

Maryland Court Decides Whether County Owes Duty to Foster Child in Wrongful Death Action

July 26, 2017 | by Foran & Foran, P.A.

Injuries that are caused by the careless actions of more than one person may give rise to legal recourse against multiple defendants. In a March 17, 2017 wrongful death decision, the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland considered whether the county was liable for the death of a two-year old child in foster care. The plaintiff filed the appeal after the circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of the county.

In 2007, as a result of the county’s determination that the child was in need of assistance, the circuit court ordered that he be placed in a foster home. At the foster home, the child’s room had a window covered with venetian blinds, which were controlled by two single-tassel cords. Although the blind cords were usually hung on a nail at the top of the window, the child became entangled in the blind cords and subsequently died from strangulation in 2009. The biological mother of the child filed a wrongful death action against the county for failing to properly supervise and protect the child. The circuit court ruled that the facts did not give rise to a common law or statutory duty that the county owed to the child.

In Maryland, a negligence action requires a plaintiff to establish four elements: a duty owed by the defendant, a breach of that duty, a causal relationship between the breach and the harm suffered, and damages. Generally, government entities do not owe a tort duty to the world at-large. A government entity can be liable in tort, however, if it takes an affirmative step to create a duty. That duty can be created in two ways: (1) legally, by adopting a statute; or (2) factually, by creating a special relationship.

Maryland Court Rules for Plaintiff in Wrongful Death Appeal Regarding Venue

April 25, 2017 | by Foran & Foran, P.A.

There are important rules regarding the location of the court where a case is heard, known as venue. The Court of Special Appeals of Maryland recently discussed this issue in the context of a wrongful death action in Smith v. Salim (Md. Ct. Spec. App. Dec. 27, 2016).

In Smith, the plaintiffs’ young daughter died when her pacemaker’s battery expired. The plaintiffs brought suit against five defendants, including the doctor, the hospital where the pacemaker was implanted, the hospital where the child was treated before her death, the manufacturer of the pacemaker, and the service monitoring the pacemaker. The defendants filed a motion to transfer venue from Baltimore City to Anne Arundel County, claiming that it was the single common venue for all five defendants. The circuit court granted the motion over the plaintiffs’ objection, and the plaintiffs appealed.

In Maryland, CJP § 6-201 provides that if there is more than one defendant in a civil action, and there is no single venue applicable to all of the defendants, all may be sued in a county in which any one of them could be sued, subject to the provisions of CJP § 6-202. Under CJP § 6-202, the action may be brought in the county where the plaintiff resides, if the defendant is a corporation that has no principal place of business in Maryland. In Smith, the defendants argued that the provisions of § 6-202 take priority over § 6-201. The plaintiffs contended that neither section has priority over the other and that § 6-202 merely presents options for alternative venues to those available under § 6-201.

Maryland Bicyclist Killed by Tractor Trailer, Wife Pursues Appeal in Wrongful Death Action

April 25, 2017 | by Foran & Foran, P.A.

In a recent personal injury case, the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland explained aspects of liability and duty concerning the participation of a private entity in the design and construction of government roadways. The plaintiff filed a wrongful death action against a cement company, the county, and the state of Maryland after her husband was killed by a tractor trailer. When the trial court dismissed the plaintiff’s claims against the defendants, the plaintiff brought her appeal to the higher court.

In this case, the plaintiff’s husband was cycling on a state road designated as a bicycle route. He entered with the right of way into an intersection that did not have any traffic light. A tractor trailer leaving a cement plant entered the intersection at the same time, striking the plaintiff’s husband. In her lawsuit, the plaintiff alleged that the intersection was negligently designed and constructed to funnel the bicycle lane into the acceleration lane for vehicles turning right onto the state road. Although the cement company did not own the tractor-trailer involved in the accident, the plaintiff claimed that the cement company owed a duty in tort with regard to its participation in the design and construction of the intersection.

Maryland Plaintiffs May Bring Wrongful Death Action Despite Successful Personal Injury Claim of Decedent

August 15, 2016 | by Foran & Foran, P.A.

In a newly issued decision, the Court of Appeals of Maryland settled the question of whether surviving family members can bring a wrongful death action based on the same alleged conduct as a personal injury claim won by the decedent before his death. In Spangler v. McQuitty (Md. July 12, 2016), the court ultimately held that the decedent’s beneficiaries are not barred from filing a subsequent wrongful death action, despite a judgment on the merits in the decedent’s personal injury claim. The court further held that when only one joint defendant is released from liability by the injured person, the other defendants are not also discharged. Accordingly, such a release does not preclude a wrongful death action brought by the survivors against other defendants that were not parties to the release.

In Spangler, the mother suffered a placental abruption, causing severe injuries to her child during his birth as well as cerebral palsy. The parents of the minor child sued their obstetrician and medical practice group for failing to secure the mother’s informed consent for treatment. Several of the defendants settled with the plaintiffs before trial. After trial, the jury awarded the child approximately $13 million in damages, including future medical expenses. Although the verdict was upheld, the jury award was ultimately reduced after subsequent appeals.

During the appeal litigation of his personal injury claim, the child died. His parents filed a wrongful death action against the defendants under the Maryland wrongful death statute, based on the same underlying facts as the personal injury action regarding the obstetrician’s failure to obtain informed consent. The circuit court dismissed the case, concluding that it was precluded by the previous judgment. That decision was reversed by the Court of Special Appeals, and the case subsequently came before the Maryland Court of Appeals.