Maryland Personal Injury Blog

Maryland Court Upholds Jury Verdict for Plaintiff in Personal Injury Action Against Police Officer

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

A Maryland personal injury claim may be based on the intentional or negligent conduct of another person. Bringing a legal action against law enforcement officers for injuries may require specific considerations. In a June 2, 2020 opinion, the Maryland Court of Appeals reviewed a case brought by the estate of an individual against a city police officer. The matter had been tried before a jury, which awarded damages to the plaintiff after finding the police officer used excessive force during the encounter. The Court of Special Appeals subsequently overturned the jury’s finding, and the plaintiff sought review from the Maryland Court of Appeals.

The decedent in the case had been pulled over by the officer after driving on the wrong side of the road. A surveillance video showed the decedent exiting his vehicle and approaching the officer, but did not show whether the decedent was armed. Testimony revealed that the officer fired four shots at the decedent, who was unarmed. The decedent was treated for his injuries but died due to causes unrelated to the incident, and his estate filed the action against the officer on his behalf.

In a Maryland excessive force case, the plaintiff has the burden to establish that the law enforcement officer exceeded the level of force an objectively reasonable officer would use under the same or similar situation. To determine whether a police officer has used excessive force, the jury must consider circumstances such as the severity of the crime at issue, whether the suspect posed an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others, whether he was actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by fleeing, and that law enforcement officers are often forced to make split-second judgments in situations that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving. A law enforcement officer may only use deadly force when the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or others.

Court Discusses Requirements for Qualified Expert in Maryland Medical Malpractice Case

June 14, 2020 | by Foran & Foran, P.A.

The Maryland Health Care Malpractice Claims Act governs medical malpractice actions in Maryland. To file a claim under the Act, a plaintiff must follow the requirements provided therein. In a May 26, 2020 case, the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland analyzed whether the plaintiff had complied with the certification requirements under the Act. The issue came before the court on appeal by the plaintiff, who had filed a negligence claim against a hospital.

The plaintiff in the case alleged that he suffered injuries as a result of the defendant’s employees negligently dropping him into a chair during the course of his recovery from back surgery. In accordance with the Act’s requirements, the plaintiff filed a Certificate of Qualified Expert and Report. The certificate was completed and signed by a registered nurse. The plaintiff then filed an election to waive arbitration and proceed in circuit court, which was granted.

In circuit court, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss based on the ground that the certificate was deficient because it was signed by a registered nurse, and not by a medical doctor. The trial court agreed with the defendant, finding that the certificate was deficient and dismissed the plaintiff’s complaint. The plaintiff brought the subsequent appeal.

Maryland Pedestrian Struck by Car Sues for Insurance Coverage

June 13, 2020 | by Foran & Foran, P.A.

Although medical expenses and other losses resulting from a car accident may be covered under more than one insurance policy, as a general rule, you cannot recover duplicate benefits for the same incident. A Maryland injury attorney can help by pursuing the maximum benefits allowable under the facts of a specific case.

A March 18, 2020 case involving a pedestrian-auto accident illustrates some issues that may arise when multiple sources of coverage may be available. The plaintiff in the case was on foot and about to enter his company vehicle when he was struck by a car. He sustained injuries as a result of the accident, which he alleged caused damages of approximately $90,000 to $100,000.

The driver’s insurance company agreed to pay the $30,000 policy limit to the plaintiff. Because the accident occurred while the plaintiff was working, he filed a claim for workers’ compensation benefits, for which he received almost $46,000. The plaintiff was also covered under the insurance policy for the company vehicle, which provided underinsured motorist coverage up to $50,000 per person. The plaintiff filed suit against the insurer of the company vehicle to recover underinsured motorist benefits.

Maryland Construction Worker Files Personal Injury Suit After Falling in Trench

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

Employers and landowners generally have a duty to keep the property safe for individuals hired to perform work on the premises. In a May 12, 2020 Maryland personal injury case, the plaintiff sued the owners of a manufacturing plant after falling into a trench on the property. After the circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, the case came before the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland on appeal by the plaintiff.

The plaintiff in the case worked for an independent contractor, who was hired by the defendants to renovate the floor and trench system of their manufacturing plant. One day, the plaintiff’s supervisor instructed him to see someone working in a different building of the plant. Once the plaintiff entered the building, he saw someone struggling with a piece of plywood and went to assist him. The plaintiff picked up one end of the plywood and as he stepped forward, he fell into a two-foot trench. The plaintiff filed a personal injury suit against the plant owners, alleging negligence.

In Maryland, employers of independent contractors must adhere to the safe workplace doctrine. Under the doctrine, the employer must warn the employee of any concealed or latent dangers, of which the employer knows or should know with the exercise of ordinary care. However, an employer or premises owner can discharge their duty to warn employees of an independent contractor by notifying the independent contractor or his supervisory employees of the latent danger.

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.

Maryland Appeals Court Addresses Notice Requirements in Wrongful Death Case

May 21, 2020 | by Foran & Foran, P.A.

Failure to comply with certain procedural rules may be detrimental to a Maryland wrongful death action, as illustrated in a March 10, 2020 case. Following the fatal car accident of his daughter, the plaintiff filed a wrongful death suit against the mayor and city council, alleging faulty construction and maintenance of the road on which the accident occurred. However, the plaintiff had failed to provide timely notice of his claim within the required deadline. As a result, the lower court granted summary judgment in favor the City. The plaintiff subsequently appealed the matter to the Court of Special Appeals.

Under Maryland law, an action for damages against a local government or its employees requires that notice of the claim be given within 180 days after the injury. However, the plaintiff’s failure to provide proper notice to the appropriate governmental body may be overcome by a showing of good cause, as long as the defendant was not prejudiced as a result of the lack of notice.

The general standard used to determine “good cause” is whether the plaintiff prosecuted his claim with the degree of diligence that an ordinarily prudent person would have exercised under the same circumstances. When deciding whether that standard has been met, Maryland courts typically consider five factors: (1) excusable neglect or mistake, as determined by the reasonably prudent person standard, (2) serious physical, mental injury, and/or location out-of-state, (3) the inability to retain counsel in cases involving complex litigation, (4) ignorance of the statutory notice requirement, or (5) misleading representations made by representative of the local government.

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.