Wrongful Death

Maryland Court of Special Appeals Sides with Plaintiff Regarding Arbitration of Wrongful Death Claims

August 11, 2016 | by Foran & Foran, P.A.

In a recent appeal, a Maryland plaintiff won her right to pursue a wrongful death claim against a nursing home after her mother died under its care. Specifically, the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland in Futurecare Northpoint, LLC v. Peeler (Md. Ct. Spec. App. July 28, 2016) addressed the issue of whether wrongful death beneficiaries are bound by a valid arbitration agreement executed by the decedent before her death. The lower court denied the defendant nursing facility’s motion to compel arbitration of the claims, and the defendant appealed.

In Futurecare, the decedent signed a contract upon her admission to the defendant’s nursing facility, agreeing to resolve any claims arising out of her care through binding arbitration. A section of that agreement also extended the arbitration to claims of the decedent’s beneficiaries and survivors and waived their right to a jury trial. After the decedent’s death, her daughter filed a wrongful death claim against the defendant for medical malpractice, which the defendant argued was subject to arbitration pursuant to the agreement.

Arbitration is a process whereby parties voluntarily agree to substitute a private tribunal for the public tribunal (the state courts) that would be otherwise available to them. On appeal, the court cited Maryland’s arbitration statute, which provides that a written contract to submit to arbitration any controversy arising between the parties in the future is valid and enforceable. The court then explained that an arbitration agreement cannot impose obligations on persons who are not parties to it and do not agree to its terms. As an exception to that rule, however, a third party may be required to arbitrate if he or she is acting in a representative capacity on behalf of a party to the agreement. For example, many causes of action that “survive” a party’s death may be brought by the decedent’s personal representative for the benefit of the estate.

Maryland Court of Special Appeals Reviews Standard of Care in Medical Malpractice Case

March 31, 2016 | by Foran & Foran, P.A.

The Court of Special Appeals of Maryland recently reviewed a lower court’s decision granting summary judgment in favor of a physician-defendant in a medical malpractice case. In Puppolo v. Sivaraman, the plaintiff’s wife died as the result of the administration of heparin, an anticoagulant used to prevent blood clotting during dialysis. Heparin is not typically administered to patients with platelet levels below 50, since there is a high risk that heparin-induced thrombocytopenia, a serious and sometimes fatal condition, may occur. On December 23, 2008, although the plaintiff’s wife had a platelet level of 1, she was given two doses of heparin, and she died shortly thereafter.

The plaintiff brought a wrongful death claim against his wife’s doctor, alleging that he breached his duty of care by administering the heparin to his wife, or allowing it to be administered to her. In order to establish medical malpractice, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant owed a duty of care to the victim, the defendant breached the duty of care, the defendant’s actions caused the injury to the victim, and damages were incurred. Generally, expert medical testimony is required to prove the standard of care and what constitutes a breach of that standard.

In Puppolo, the evidence indicated that the doctor did not write an order for heparin and that one of the other resident doctors working in the hospital ordered the prescription. The plaintiff nevertheless contended that the defendant was liable for the resident’s breach of the standard of care under the borrowed servant rule. The lower court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, finding that there was nothing to support the plaintiff’s assertion that the defendant ordered, directed, approved, or controlled the ordering of heparin.

Maryland Court Rules Asbestos Defendants May Be Liable for Failure to Warn About Replacement Parts

March 19, 2016 | by Foran & Foran, P.A.

The Maryland Court of Appeals recently published an important opinion that will have consequences for future asbestos litigation and personal injury claims. In a victory for asbestos plaintiffs, the court’s ruling in May v. Air & Liquid Sys. Corp. (Md. Dec. 18, 2015) found that in limited circumstances, a manufacturer has a duty to warn workers of asbestos-containing third-party replacement component parts under theories of negligence and strict liability.

In May, the plaintiff replaced asbestos gaskets and packing while in the United States Navy from 1956 until 1976, which exposed him to airborne asbestos fibers. However, he was not exposed to the asbestos gaskets and packing that the defendants used, but to asbestos-containing replacement parts acquired from third parties. It is undisputed that the instruction manuals did not contain any warnings regarding the danger of inhaling asbestos dust or directions to wear protective gear. In January 2012, the plaintiff learned he was suffering from mesothelioma, a form of cancer that is commonly caused by asbestos exposure. The plaintiff initially filed suit against the defendants, and his wife continued the action upon his death. The defendants moved for summary judgment, contending that they had no duty to warn of the dangers of third-party asbestos-containing replacement parts that they did not manufacture or place into the stream of commerce. The trial court granted the motion in favor of the defendants, and Court of Special Appeals affirmed.

In Maryland, failure to warn claims may be brought under a negligence or strict liability theory. Negligence claims require a showing of a duty of care owed by the defendant to the plaintiff. In determining the existence of a duty, the court considers many factors, including the foreseeability of harm to the plaintiff, the degree of certainty that the plaintiff suffered the injury, the closeness of the connection between the defendant’s conduct and the injury suffered, the moral blame attached to the defendant’s conduct, the policy of preventing future harm, the extent of the burden to the defendant, and others.

Maryland Court Decides Issue of Insurance Coverage in Truck Accident

December 12, 2015 | by Foran & Foran, P.A.

The Maryland Court of Special Appeals reviewed a wrongful death case involving a truck accident and addressed the issue of whether the defendant had insurance coverage. In Glass v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Ins. Co. (Md. Ct. Spec. App. Aug. 5, 2015), the defendant’s employee was driving the company delivery van and lost control of it. The van swerved across the center lines and hit the victim’s vehicle head-on. The victim died of injuries caused by the accident shortly thereafter. The victim’s husband brought a personal injury negligence and wrongful death suit against the employee and the employer, and he later amended the complaint to include the employer’s insurer.

The parties disputed whether the accident was covered under the business policy issued by the insurer, due to the unintended entanglement of two separate legal entities of the employer. In 2004, the employer created a general partnership. The general partnership purchased and owned the van driven by the employee, as well as the insurance policy in effect at the time of the accident. However, when the employer formed an LLC in 2006, intending to merge the general partnership with the LLC, it was never properly completed. As a result, both companies remained in existence as separate legal entities, and the general partnership held title to the van and the insurance policy. Although the employer began conducting business in the name of the LLC, it was performing the contractual obligations of the general partnership.

The parties filed motions for declaratory judgment for the trial court to decide the issue of insurance coverage. After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court found that at the time of the accident, the company was conducting business on behalf of the general partnership, and the van was owned by the general partnership. Therefore, the court held, the accident was not covered under the business policy through an exemption to a coverage exclusion for injuries arising out of the use of a non-owned automobile.

Maryland Court of Special Appeals Rules Tobacco and Asbestos Defendants Can Be Joined in Wrongful Death Action

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

In a recently released opinion in the case of Stidham v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. (Md. Ct. Spec. App. Aug. 27, 2015), the Maryland Court of Special Appeals finally answered the question of whether or not joinder of wrongful death claims against asbestos defendants with wrongful death claims asserted against tobacco defendants is proper. Despite the fact that the plaintiffs’ claims against the tobacco defendants had been dismissed by the circuit court due to misjoinder, and its claims against the asbestos defendants had been resolved by the time it reached the court, rendering the case moot by the time it reached the court, the court nevertheless addressed the merits of the case, finding that the appeal presented a recurring matter of public concern that, unless decided, would continue to evade judicial review.

In Stidham, the decedent initially filed a claim against asbestos manufacturers and distributors, alleging that he developed lung cancer due to his exposure to asbestos products. After his death, the wrongful death plaintiffs amended the complaint to add claims against certain tobacco companies, alleging that the asbestos and tobacco companies failed to warn the decedent that concurrent exposure to asbestos and cigarettes increased the risk to his health, a concept known as the synergy theory. Specifically, the theory proposes that a combination of asbestos exposure and the use of tobacco products exponentially increases the danger of developing cancer. Therefore, there is a much greater risk that cigarette smokers exposed to asbestos will develop lung cancer, as opposed to non-smokers solely exposed to asbestos.

Maryland Court of Special Appeals Dismisses Negligence Action Against Adult Who Allowed Underage Drinking at Her Residence

September 30, 2015 | by Foran & Foran, P.A.

The Court of Special Appeals of Maryland recently issued an opinion regarding a negligence action brought by the mother of a deceased minor against a host who allowed minors to consume alcohol at her home. The circuit court granted the defendant-host’s motion to dismiss the negligence claim, holding that no legal cause of action existed against the defendant, and the plaintiff appealed.

In Davis v. Stapf, Md. Ct. Sp. App. (2015), the defendant purchased alcohol for high school classmates of her son to consume at a party in the defendant’s home. The plaintiff alleged that, despite the defendant’s actual knowledge that they were intoxicated, the defendant allowed a partygoer to leave the party with the plaintiff’s son in his truck. Shortly after leaving the defendant’s residence, the driver crashed the truck, killing the plaintiff’s son. The defendant was charged with allowing underage persons to drink alcohol in violation of CL § 10-117(b).

To prevail on a negligence claim, the plaintiff must show that the defendant was under a duty to protect the victim from injury, the defendant breached that duty, the victim suffered an injury, and the injury proximately resulted from the defendant’s breach of the duty. A breach of a statutory duty is considered evidence of negligence only if (1) the victim was a member of the class of persons the statute was designed to protect, (2) the injury suffered was the type the statute was designed to prevent, and (3) the violation of the statute was the proximate cause of the injury sustained.

Maryland Court Allows Plaintiff to Bring Wrongful Death Suit Based on Same Conduct as Prior Personal Injury Case

August 21, 2015 | by Foran & Foran, P.A.

The Maryland Court of Special Appeals recently filed an unreported opinion in the case of McQuitty v. Spangler, Md. Ct. Sp. App. (2015), in which they decided the issue of whether the decedent’s survivors could bring a wrongful death action for the same conduct as the underlying personal injury action, after the decedent won the personal injury action.

The decedent was born in 1995 with severe cerebral palsy. In 2001, the parents of the decedent brought a personal injury action against the doctors on his behalf, alleging medical malpractice and breach of informed consent. After a jury trial, the decedent received a judgment in his favor in 2006, which was affirmed after several rounds of appeal. The decedent died in 2009, and his estate recovered money damages from the defendants in satisfaction of the judgment in March 2012.

On May 17, 2012, the decedent’s survivors brought a wrongful death action against the same parties, based on the same conduct that brought about the medical malpractice suit. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the principle of res judicata barred the survivors from bringing essentially the same suit against them. The circuit court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss, and the survivors appealed to the Court of Special Appeals.

wrongful death caused by intoxicated driver

December 23, 2011 | by Foran & Foran, P.A.

In a recent wrongful death claim a Missouri police officer allegedly caused an accident that resulted in four deaths. A settlement was reached for $ 2.25 million to the surviving family members of the deceased parties. The driver, a police officer, was apparently intoxicated at the time of the collision and had significant blood alcohol levels in her blood even three hours after the accident. Read more about wrongful death cases here.

Bus accident
12/08/2011 09:35:27 AM

A jury in New York recently awarded 7.5 million dollars to two women who were involved in a bus accident. Apparently, the bus ran a red light and struck an automobile, thereby causing significant injuries to the two women. The bus company was offered a settlement of $ 3 million but declined. Now they are exposed to the 7.5 million verdict. Bus accident can be particularly catastrophic because of the size of the bus and the inability to stop a bus as quickly as an automobile. If you or a loved one is involved in a bus accident, call the Law Firm of foran & Foran, P.A. Continue Reading ›

Ski accident leads to settlement for beginner student

June 25, 2010 | by Foran & Foran, P.A.

Dartmouth College recently settled a lawsuit with regarding a student who was injured in a skiing accident that occurred while she was taking a skiing class. Apparently, the student skied into a tree during class. She was not wearing a helmet and was just a beginner. The student remained in a coma for 6 months before dying. This was a confidential settlement. Although there was probably an element of assumption of the risk in this case, the fact that the instructor did not have a beginning student wearing a helmet probably is what caused the defendant to agree to a settlement.

Car Accident on Ice or Snow

February 8, 2010 | by Foran & Foran, P.A.

There are several reported Maryland cases regarding automobile accidents on ice or snow. They include Larkins v. Balt. Transit, 249 Md. 305; Billmeyer v. State f/u/o Whiteman, 192 Md. 419; Wolfe v. State f/u/o Brown, 173 Md. 103; and Trusty v. Wooden, 251 Md. 294. A person must use reasonable care when driving on ice or snow. This could include reducing speed and being aware of longer stopping distances. Car Accident on Ice or snow.

Slip and Fall Evidence
02/04/2010 09:34:32 AM

Slip and Fall. The case law in Maryland suggests that in order to prevail on a slip and fall case where liquid has been left on the floor Continue Reading ›