Maryland Personal Injury Blog

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 Plaintiff Brings Personal Injury Suit Against HOA After Slipping in Icy Parking Lot

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

In Maryland, a property owner has a duty to keep the premises safe for invitees. The owner may be liable for injuries that occur on their property if they knew or should have known of the danger, and they failed to warn or correct it. In a February 13, 2020 personal injury case, the issue before the court was whether the defendants had actual or constructive notice of an alleged dangerous condition on their parking lot. The plaintiff appealed the matter to the Court of Special Appeals when her Maryland slip and fall case was dismissed on summary judgment.

The plaintiff in the case was walking through the parking lot of her subdivision one evening when she slipped on black ice and fell. As a result of the accident, she suffered a permanent traumatic brain injury. The plaintiff filed a personal injury suit against her homeowner’s association and property manager, claiming that they negligently failed to maintain the parking lot, which resulted in her injury. The lower court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, concluding that they did not have notice of the icy condition that caused the plaintiff’s fall.

In Maryland, a landowner has a duty to use reasonable and ordinary care to keep the premises safe for invitees and protect them from injury caused by an unreasonable risk which the invitee would not discover. The plaintiff in the case owned a home in the subdivision, but the common areas and parking lot of the subdivision were under the control of the defendants. Accordingly, the appeals court held that the plaintiff was an invitee while she was on the parking lot, and the defendants owed her a corresponding duty of care to keep the parking lot safe. In order to establish a premises liability claim, however, the plaintiff must show that the defendants knew, or had reason to know of the hazardous condition on the property.

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.

Maryland Court Considers Issue of Causation in Slip and Fall Case Against Restaurant

May 8, 2020 | by Foran & Foran, P.A.

To establish a negligence claim in Maryland, the plaintiff must show proof of duty, breach, causation, and injury. Causation generally requires evidence that the defendant’s actions caused her injury. In a February 4, 2020 opinion, the Court of Special Appeals reviewed the evidence of causation in a personal injury claim. The issue was brought on appeal by the plaintiff after the lower court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants in a Maryland slip and fall case.

The plaintiff in the case had filed a legal action against the owners of a seafood restaurant. The plaintiff alleged in her Complaint that she slipped and fell while patronizing the defendants’ restaurant. She asserted that, as a result of the fall, she suffered injuries including chronic neck pain and numbness and pain in her hands. The plaintiff sought damages for her injuries, which she argued were caused by the defendants’ negligence.

Before trial, the defendants moved for summary judgment on the grounds that the plaintiff could not prove the elements of causation or damages. They pointed out that the plaintiff’s medical records were not certified and did not contain any statements by any of her doctors that her injuries were caused by the slip and fall accident. Nor did the plaintiff have an expert witness to testify as to causation. In addition, the plaintiff did not provide any medical bills for treatment and expenses related to her injuries. The lower court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, and the plaintiff appealed.

Plaintiff Appeals Summary Judgment Granted in Favor of Security Officer in Maryland Personal Injury Case

February 1, 2020 | by Foran & Foran, P.A.

In Maryland, an individual may seek damages for personal injuries caused by another person by taking legal action. In a December 4, 2019 opinion, the Court of Special Appeals reviewed a personal injury case arising out of an altercation between the security officer of a restaurant bar and one of its patrons. The matter was brought to the court on appeal of the lower court’s decision granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants.

The plaintiff in the case had been drinking at the restaurant bar with four of his friends. After the plaintiff’s friends left the bar intoxicated, they began breaking glass bottles in the parking lot. Three bouncers approached them, including the defendant, who was a state police trooper currently working a second job as a security officer of the restaurant. At that moment, the plaintiff was forcibly removed from the bar by another bouncer. The defendant approached the plaintiff and asked him to leave. They began to argue, and the defendant executed a takedown maneuver that caused the plaintiff to hit his head on the pavement and fracture his temporal bone.

The plaintiff filed a suit against the restaurant, the property owners, and several other defendants, including the trooper. He asserted multiple personal injury claims against the defendants for negligence and excessive force. After the witnesses were deposed, the circuit court granted the defendants motions for summary judgment. One of the issues on appeal was whether the circuit court properly concluded that the trooper’s force was not excessive.

Maryland Appeals Court Reversals Dismissal of Medical Malpractice Claim

January 30, 2020 | by Foran & Foran, P.A.

A Maryland medical malpractice claim requires an expert witness to testify in support of the plaintiff’s case. Failure to secure an expert medical witness, or provide admissible expert testimony may result in a dismissal of the claim. In a January 10, 2020 medical negligence case, the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland reviewed whether the testimony of the plaintiff’s expert witness was excluded improperly by the circuit court. That decision resulted in a dismissal of the plaintiff’s case, prompting her subsequent appeal.

The plaintiff in the case had received medical treatment from the defendant after suffering fractures to her pelvis and arm. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant failed to timely diagnose and treat an oral infection, which led to pain, an inability to eat, and weight loss. To support her medical malpractice claim, the plaintiff presented an expert medical witness to testify.

After the deposition of the plaintiff’s expert witness, the defendant moved to exclude his testimony, arguing that he had failed to define the standard of care during his deposition. The plaintiff sought leave of court to recall her expert and have him clarify his standard of care testimony. The circuit court did not specifically address the plaintiff’s request, but ruled that the testimony would be excluded because he never specifically stated the standard of care. The case was then dismissed, as he was the plaintiff’s sole expert witness.

Maryland Court Finds City Is Not Liable for Injuries Resulting from Common Sidewalk Defect

January 28, 2020 | by Foran & Foran, P.A.

Maryland trip and fall accidents can cause severe injuries, particularly for elderly individuals. In some instances, an injured person may be able to recover their damages in a personal injury suit. In a January 3, 2020 negligence case, the plaintiff brought suit against the City of Baltimore after falling on a public sidewalk. After the lower court granted summary judgment in favor of the City, the matter was appealed to the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland.

The plaintiff in the case was injured as she was walking along a sidewalk and tripped and fell on an elevated portion of the sidewalk. The plaintiff suffered serious personal injuries to her face and mouth as a result of the fall and incurred over $15,000 in medical expenses, including orthodontic surgery to repair damage to her teeth. She was 80 years old at the time of the injury.

In her suit, the plaintiff alleged that the City negligently attempted to repair the sidewalk, and as a result, the sidewalk was uneven. The City argued that the sidewalk defect was so slight, that it was non-actionable under the triviality doctrine. The City also argued that the plaintiff failed to produce evidence that it had notice of the defect before the plaintiff’s accident.