Maryland Personal Injury Blog

Dog Attack Victim Brings Negligence Suit Against Landlord in Maryland Appeals Case

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

Dog bites or attacks can cause serious injuries. In many instances, the victim may have recourse against a negligent pet owner. In an October 16, 2019 case, the Court of Special Appeals reviewed a Maryland personal injury negligence claim brought by a plaintiff who suffered injuries as a result of a dog attack. When her claims were dismissed by the circuit court on summary judgment, she brought an appeal.

The plaintiff in the case was reportedly attacked right outside of her home by a pit bull. The dog was owned by the son of one of the tenants in a nearby housing complex. The dog owner did not reside in the housing complex, but frequently stayed with his mother for varying periods of time. Although the housing complex prohibited dogs on the property without written consent, the tenant allowed her son to bring dogs with him when he visited her. Following the dog attack, the plaintiff filed a negligence suit against the owner of the housing development.

In Maryland, to hold a landlord responsible for injuries sustained from an attack by a dog owned by a tenant, the plaintiff has the burden to prove that the landlord: (1) had control over the dog’s presence at the property; (2) was aware of the presence of the dog at the property; and (3) was aware that the dog had vicious propensities.

United States Appeals Court Analyzes Role of Seller in Maryland Product Liability Action

January 12, 2020 | by Foran & Foran, P.A.

If you have been injured by a defective product, you may have legal recourse. In Maryland, sellers and manufacturers may be held liable for putting a defective product into the hands of a consumer. A Maryland products liability action may be brought under theories of negligence, breach of warranty, or strict liability. In a recent opinion, the U.S. Court of Appeals considered whether Amazon could be held liable under Maryland law for damage caused by a defective product sold on its website.

The consumer in the case had purchased an LED headlamp on Amazon’s website as a gift to his friends. The headlamp’s batteries apparently malfunctioned, igniting the friends’ house and causing over $300,000 in damages. The company that insured the house brought a subrogation action against Amazon, alleging products liability claims under Maryland law.

In Maryland, a products liability action arising from breach of warranty, negligence, or strict liability may be brought against the seller of a defective product. A “seller” includes a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, wholesaler, other middleman, or the retailer. The plaintiff must show three elements in a Maryland products liability action: (1) a defect; (2) attribution of the defect to the seller; and (3) a causal relationship between the defect and the injury to the plaintiff. The defect must be shown to exist at the time the product left the seller (whether manufacturer, distributor, or retailer), or at the time the sale was made.

Governmental Immunity at Issue in Maryland Negligence Suit for Injuries in County Park

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

In Maryland, most individuals and entities may be held liable for personal injuries caused by their negligent conduct. However, in situations involving alleged negligence on the part of the government or state officials, the concept of immunity may be a consideration. Recently, the Court of Special Appeals decided whether or not governmental immunity applied to a local county in a September 16, 2019 Maryland negligence case.

The plaintiff in the case had enrolled her son in youth swimming lessons offered by the County at a public park. After dropping her son off for his lesson, she walked through the park with her younger child strapped to her front in a baby carrier. As she traveled through a blacktop, gravel area in the park, her foot came into contact with a water pipe that was reportedly protruding above the gravel. She fell forward onto her hands and knees, injuring herself and her child.

The plaintiff then brought a lawsuit against the County, claiming that its negligence in maintaining the park caused the injuries to her and her child. The County filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that it was immune from suit for any injuries resulting from its maintenance of the park due to governmental immunity. The circuit court agreed and granted the motion based on case law establishing that the maintenance and operation of a public swimming pool by a local government is a governmental function. The plaintiff appealed that decision to the higher court.

Maryland Court Rules Nursing Home Arbitration Contract Is Void in Maryland Wrongful Death Case

January 10, 2020 | by Foran & Foran, P.A.

Negligent nursing home care may cause serious injuries or even death, as well as emotional pain for the victim’s family. Many nursing care facilities in Maryland require patients to execute agreements upon admittance in which they agree to arbitrate any future legal claims against the facility. In a June 27, 2019 Maryland wrongful death case, the validity of such an arbitration agreement was decided by the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland.

The plaintiff’s father and the decedent in the case had resided at the defendant’s nursing care facility before his death. The day before her father was admitted to the facility, the plaintiff executed an admission contract on his behalf. The contract required that all disputes arising out of a patient’s stay at the facility be submitted to mediation, and if not resolved through mediation, be submitted to an arbitration process.

Following her father’s death, the plaintiff filed a negligence suit against the defendants in circuit court, alleging that while in the care of the defendant’s facility, her father developed serious health concerns, including bed sores and gangrene, as a result of inadequate medical care. The plaintiff further alleged that these conditions were caused by the defendant’s negligence, and that the defendant was responsible for causing her father’s death. After the lower court granted the defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, the plaintiff filed an appeal.

Maryland Plaintiff Seeks Relief on Appeal After Water Meter Injury

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

Bringing a Maryland negligence claim after an injury may involve specific legal procedures. A Maryland accident lawyer can guide you through the proceedings and ensure that the correct steps are taken. In a September 16, 2019 case, the plaintiff attempted to file a claim against the City for injuries suffered as the result of a collapsed temporary water meter. The issue for the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland was whether proper notice was given to the defendants.

The plaintiff in the case was walking on the sidewalk when he reportedly stepped onto a temporary water meter cover. The cover, made of wood, collapsed under the plaintiff, causing him to fall and injure his left leg. In September of 2015, the plaintiff attempted to give notice of his injury to the City by letter, pursuant to the Local Government Tort Claims Act (LGTCA). The letter, however, was not sent via certified mail, return receipt requested, as required by the local rules. The letter was ultimately delivered to an unknown address instead of to the City.

In February of 2018, the plaintiff filed a negligence suit against the City and mayor in the circuit court. The defendants moved for summary judgment, asserting that the plaintiff failed to provide timely notice as required under the LGTCA. After a hearing on the issue, the circuit court granted the defendants’ motion and dismissed the plaintiff’s claims. The plaintiff appealed the issue, arguing that he had substantially complied with the notice requirements.

Maryland Court Mulls Legal Remedy for Plaintiff Pursuing Personal Injury Action for Asbestos Exposure

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

Some personal injuries affecting a certain group of people are covered by state or federal legislation, such as those injured in the course of their employment. If these injuries overlap with common law negligence, a Maryland personal injury attorney can assist you in pursuing the appropriate action in court. In an August 28, 2019 case, the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland considered whether a personal injury action was properly brought under the Federal Employer’s Liability Act (FELA).

The plaintiff in the case was a former railroad employee who filed a lawsuit against his employer, a transportation company, along with several other defendants, seeking damages under FELA. The plaintiff alleged that he was exposed to asbestos during his employment with the transportation company, and that the asbestos exposure caused him to develop malignant mesothelioma. The defendants moved to dismiss, arguing that the plaintiff’s claim was barred because the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (LHWCA) provided his exclusive remedy for employment-related claims. After the lower court granted the motion and dismissed the claims, the plaintiff filed an appeal.

FELA provides a tort remedy for railroad employees who are injured in the course of their employment caused by the negligence of the employer. The law was enacted in 1906, at a time when few states had workers’ compensation laws, and although FELA has characteristics of both workers’ compensation law and common law tort of negligence, it is neither.

Plaintiff Files Maryland Negligence Action Against Organ Recovery Organization for Cancelled Transplant Surgery

January 7, 2020 | by Foran & Foran, P.A.

In general, a person may be held liable for injuries caused by their negligence. Statutory immunity creates an exception to the general rule. Immunity may be asserted to defend against a Maryland negligence claim, as in an August 29, 2019 case. The plaintiff in the case alleged that the defendant, an organ procurement organization, negligently packaged, preserved, and transported a kidney intended for her, thus resulting in personal injuries to her. The issue was whether the defendant was immune from suit under two Maryland statutes that provide immunity for certain acts related to organ donation.

The plaintiff was on the waitlist of a hospital for a kidney transplant. Two of the defendant’s employees harvested, preserved, and packaged a kidney for donation, which was then transported by courier service to the plaintiff’s hospital. The hospital informed the plaintiff that the kidney was available for transplant and prepared her for surgery. Upon examination of the kidney, however, the hospital determined that it was discolored, appeared to have freezer burn, and was not suitable for transplant. As a result, the hospital cancelled the plaintiff’s surgery.

The plaintiff filed suit against the defendant for negligently processing the kidney. The lower court subsequently dismissed the case, finding that the defendant was immune from suit pursuant to Maryland law. The matter was then appealed to the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland.

Maryland Plaintiff Seeks Uninsured Motorist Benefits in Suit Against Insurance Company

January 6, 2020 | by Foran & Foran, P.A.

In some Maryland car accident cases, the driver who caused the collision is not insured, or does not have enough insurance coverage to pay for the entire amount of damages for which they are liable. However, if you have underinsured motorist coverage from your own auto insurer, you may file a claim to recover payment for your remaining medical expenses when the at-fault driver’s insurance policy limits are insufficient. Pursing a claim with an insurance company may be difficult, but you have the option of retaining legal representation at any time. A Maryland car accident attorney can deal with the insurance companies on your behalf and attempt to negotiate an acceptable settlement.

In an August 20, 2019 opinion, the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland reviewed an appeal from a plaintiff that had filed an underinsured motorist claim with his insurance carrier for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle collision. When his claim was denied, he brought the instant lawsuit against his insurance company. Although he was advised repeatedly by the court to hire counsel, he proceeded as a pro se litigant and represented himself.

In his lawsuit, the plaintiff stated that he suffered serious and permanent physical injuries in a motor vehicle collision that occurred in December of 2009. He also alleged that the costs of his medical treatment and related expenses exceeded the $20,000 policy limits of the other driver’s Maryland insurance policy. The plaintiff therefore sought coverage from the uninsured/underinsured motorist policy he held with his auto insurance company, which had a policy limit of up to $100,000.

Court Reviews Record for Gross Negligence in Maryland Wrongful Death Action Against City Paramedics

January 5, 2020 | by Foran & Foran, P.A.

Bringing a Maryland personal injury lawsuit against certain parties, such as police officers and emergency responders, may require proof of more than simple negligence. If the defendants are entitled to statutory immunity, the plaintiff must demonstrate gross negligence in order to hold them liable in some cases. In an August 16, 2019 Maryland wrongful death case, the Court of Appeals reviewed the record to determine whether the evidence was sufficient to establish gross negligence on the part of the defendants, who were city fire department paramedics.

The defendants in the case had responded to a 911 call for a reported chest pain emergency. After assessing the decedent’s condition, they transported him to the hospital shortly thereafter. While waiting in the emergency room, the decedent lost consciousness. He was taken to another room and received treatment from the hospital staff, but unfortunately, never regained consciousness. The plaintiffs filed a wrongful death suit against the defendants, alleging that they were negligent in providing medical assistance to the decedent.

The trial court determined that the Maryland Fire and Rescue Company Act granted the defendants civil immunity in the absence of any willful or grossly negligent act. Accordingly, the issue at trial was whether the defendants acted in a grossly negligent manner. The jury found that they had and awarded the plaintiffs approximately 3.7 million dollars in damages. The matter was appealed twice and came before the Maryland Court of Appeals.

Maryland Court Addresses the Issue of Contributory Negligence in Fatal Car Crash

January 4, 2020 | by Foran & Foran, P.A.

In some Maryland car accident cases, the actions of multiple drivers may be the causes of the collision. Proving a defendant’s liability in these injury cases can be difficult, and the plaintiff may not be able to recover damages in a Maryland personal injury lawsuit if her own negligence was a proximate cause of the accident. In a July 9, 2019 opinion, the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland grappled with a tragic wrongful death case brought by the family of a young driver who killed in a fatal car accident.

The victim in the case was driving on her learner’s permit. Traveling westward on a side road, the victim reached a stop sign at the intersection of a four-lane highway. The defendant was driving a truck northbound on the highway, traveling at 11 miles over the speed limit. As the victim entered the intersection, the defendant’s truck collided with her vehicle. Following the fatal accident, the victim’s family filed a negligence suit against the truck driver and his employer.

The issue on appeal was whether or not the victim was contributorily negligent in causing the accident, as she was required to yield the right-of-way to vehicles traveling on the highway. In Maryland, the Boulevard Rule requires the driver of a car approaching an intersection from a road controlled by a stop sign to stop and yield the right of way to cars traveling on the main road. Nevertheless, a failure to yield will not necessarily relieve the driver on the main road of liability. If the negligence of the highway driver was the proximate cause of an accident, they may be held liable, despite the other driver’s failure to yield the right-of-way.