Maryland Personal Injury Blog

Maryland Plaintiffs File Negligence Lawsuit Against Event Organizers After Being Trampled by Crowd

April 5, 2019 | by Foran & Foran, P.A.

In some Maryland personal injury cases, the plaintiffs may have multiple, alternative theories of negligence that could establish the defendant’s liability. The case cannot be dismissed before trial unless the defendant shows that the plaintiffs could not prevail on any of their theories. In a February 26, 2019 case before the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, the plaintiffs argued that their alternative theory of negligence had not been addressed by the circuit court when it dismissed their case against the defendants.

The plaintiffs in the case had attended a celebration held by the Baltimore Ravens and the City of Baltimore for their Super Bowl victory in 2013. A victory parade was planned from City Hall to the stadium, where fans were invited to a free event following the parade. On the day of the event, the stadium had reached capacity before the parade even started. The stadium gates were ordered closed by the fire marshal, but remained unlocked in case of an emergency. The plaintiffs were standing outside the stadium when someone announced that the gate near them was open. A crowd then surged toward the gate, knocking over and trampling the plaintiffs, injuring them both.

The plaintiffs filed a negligence action against the Ravens, the stadium owners, and the crowd-control contractor. The plaintiffs asserted two alternative theories of negligence. One, that the defendants failed to anticipate the reasonably foreseeable, large crowd they had invited to the stadium, and then failed to take reasonable safety precautions to control the crowd, which created a hazardous condition. Second, after the unprecedented public crowd had arrived, the defendants failed to warn of the danger, or to make a reasonable effort to eliminate the danger. The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, finding that the defendants did not have notice of any dangerous conditions at the stadium.

Family Files Maryland Wrongful Death Claim Against County for 911 System Outage

April 3, 2019 | by Foran & Foran, P.A.

In many situations, the victims of negligence may recover their damages by filing a Maryland legal claim against those responsible. One of the few exceptions concerns governmental immunity. In a February 22, 2019 opinion, the Court of Special Appeals examined whether a local county could be sued under the circumstances presented in a Maryland wrongful death case.

In the summer of 2016, a 911 call center experienced a service outage in the county that lasted approximately one hour and forty-five minutes. During the outage, the decedent suffered a medical emergency. The plaintiffs alleged that they and other friends and family had called 911 repeatedly, for over an hour, but were unable to get through. Eventually they were connected with emergency services and rescue personal subsequently responded to the scene. Tragically, the decedent could not be revived, and he passed away.

In their suit, the plaintiffs claimed that the county was negligent in maintaining the air conditioning unit that had failed and caused the 911 service outage, which in turn, allegedly caused the decedent’s death. The circuit court dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims, ruling that the county was immune from suit and that the county officials, named as individual defendants, did not owe a duty to the plaintiffs or the decedent. The plaintiffs appealed the decision to the higher court.

Maryland Plaintiff Sues Auto Insurer to Cover Medical Expenses Arising from Car Accident Injury

April 2, 2019 | by Foran & Foran, P.A.

In some in Maryland car accident cases, the evidence presented to a jury may have a significant impact on the outcome of the trial. In a February 12, 2019 opinion, the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland considered whether evidence of prior auto accident injuries was irrelevant or prejudicial to a plaintiff seeking underinsured motorist benefits from his auto insurance company.

The plaintiff in the case was rear-ended at low speed while his vehicle was stopped at a red light. Later that day, the plaintiff sought medical treatment for pain in his neck, back, knees, hips, elbows, and for nausea and headaches. He underwent an MRI, which revealed preexisting, degenerative changes to his neck and back. Over the next several years, the plaintiff intermittently received medical treatment for the pain.

The plaintiff filed a lawsuit for underinsured motorist benefits against his insurer, as the policy limits of the at-fault motorist did not cover all of his damages. Before trial, the plaintiff filed a motion to prevent the jury from learning about his other claims and injuries in six previous car accidents, as well as the one that occurred after the accident at issue in the case. The trial court, however, allowed the defendant to introduce evidence of the accidents that had caused injuries to the same parts of the plaintiff’s body as the crash at issue. The jury ultimately awarded the plaintiff over $28,000, but it only covered a fraction of his medical expenses. As such, the plaintiff sought review from the appeals court, seeking the full amount of his damages.

Maryland Plaintiff Files Dental Malpractice Suit Alleging Nerve Damage from Tooth Extraction

April 1, 2019 | by Foran & Foran, P.A.

The Maryland Health Care Malpractice Claims Statute may apply to claims alleging negligent dental care as well as medical care. In a February 8, 2019 Maryland medical malpractice action, the plaintiff sued her oral surgeon for dental malpractice and lack of consent. The case went to trial before a jury. At the close of the plaintiff’s case, the court granted the defendant’s motion for judgment, which prevented the issues from going to the jury. The plaintiff ultimately succeeded on appeal in having the judgment reversed on her malpractice claim.

The defendant in the case removed the plaintiff’s wisdom teeth. After the surgery, the plaintiff noticed that she could no longer taste food on the left side of her tongue and had lost sensation in that area. She was evaluated by a neurologist, who diagnosed her with a serious injury to her left lingual nerve. The plaintiff subsequently filed a lawsuit against the defendant.

At trial, the plaintiff’s expert witness testified that nerve damage such as hers may be caused by sectioning the tooth, a procedure that requires cutting a small bone between the roots of the tooth. He explained that if the surgeon cuts too deep, he may hit a lingual nerve. The plaintiff’s dental records, however, did not state whether or not the defendant sectioned her tooth. The defendant then testified that he may or may not have sectioned the tooth. The trial court later granted a judgment for the defendant on the malpractice claim, reasoning that the plaintiff’s expert did not specifically provide an opinion as to how the nerve was injured.

Maryland Plaintiff Proceeds with Suit Against Water Utility for Injuries Caused by Negligent Subcontractor

March 27, 2019 | by Foran & Foran, P.A.

In some Maryland personal injury cases, a business employer may be responsible for injuries caused by the carelessness of their employees. When an independent contractor or state or government entity is involved, however, there may be specific legal concepts to consider. In a January 23, 2019 Maryland negligence claim, the plaintiff appealed after the circuit court dismissed his claims against a local sanitary commission for the negligence of an independent subcontractor.

The plaintiff in the case was injured in an accident that occurred when his vehicle hit a manhole that was only partially covered. The plaintiff sued to recover damages from the local sanitary commission, which was responsible for the manhole cover. The commission argued that the plaintiff’s injuries were caused by the negligence of a subcontractor of an independent contractor that it hired. The commission claimed it had no control over the subcontractor and, therefore, could not be vicariously liable for the plaintiff’s injuries.

In Maryland, the general rule is that the employer of an independent contractor is not liable for the negligence of the contractor or his employees. However, there are a number of exceptions to the general rule that would extend liability to those who hire independent contractors. These exceptions include the employer’s negligence in selecting or supervising the contractor, non-delegable duties of the employer to the public or a particular plaintiff, and work that is inherently dangerous.

Maryland Plaintiff Pursues Personal Injury Claim Against City for Water Meter Injury

March 19, 2019 | by Foran & Foran, P.A.

Holding a local government or municipality liable for negligence may be difficult in some cases. A Maryland injury attorney can assist plaintiffs by presenting the evidence persuasively to a judge or jury. In a December 19, 2018 case, the plaintiff filed a Maryland injury claim against the city counsel, local government, and an excavation company following an accident involving a water meter. The case was brought before the Court of Special Appeals after the trial court granted summary judgment against the plaintiff.

The plaintiff in the case alleged that she was injured when a water meter cover opened and she stepped into the hole. The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that they had no notice of the allegedly defective water meter lid, nor did they have any duty to inspect in the absence of notice. The plaintiff contended that the defendants had notice because the excavation company was working in the area to repair water leaks. She also provided a letter from the city informing the company of the plaintiff’s suit. The letter contained a handwritten note to “take notice lid is broke” with a date.

In a Maryland negligence claim, the plaintiff must prove that: (1) the defendant was under a duty to protect the plaintiff from injury, (2) the defendant breached that duty, (3) the plaintiff suffered injury or loss, and (4) the injury proximately resulted from the defendant’s breach of duty.

Plaintiff Challenges Filing Deadline in Maryland Medical Malpractice Action for Staph Infection

March 18, 2019 | by Foran & Foran, P.A.

The procedural requirements of a Maryland medical malpractice action are an important part of pursuing a lawsuit after negligent health care. In some cases, failing to meet the filing deadlines can have an adverse outcome, including dismissal of the plaintiff’s claims. In a January 18, 2019 appeal, the court was asked to determine whether the plaintiff’s medical malpractice claims were banned by the statute of limitations.

The plaintiff in the case had suffered a leg injury in a jet ski accident and was transferred to the defendant’s hospital for surgery in July of 2010. Following the surgery, the plaintiff was tested for staph bacteria, and the results came back negative. A few days later, evidence of a staph infection appeared. The plaintiff was then discharged to an acute rehabilitation center in Virginia. After a week at the rehabilitation center, the plaintiff was transferred back to the defendant’s hospital due to the worsening infection. Over the next few years, the plaintiff was treated multiple times for staph infections and ultimately, underwent a total knee replacement in 2013.

In June of 2013, the plaintiff filed suit against the defendants, and the case was transferred to the U.S. District Court. The plaintiff had a certificate of qualified expert from a doctor who was prepared to testify that the defendants deviated from the standard of care. However, finding that the doctor was not qualified to testify as to one of the issues, the court dismissed the claim.

Estate Argues for a Mistrial on Appeal in Maryland Medical Malpractice Case

February 13, 2019 | by Foran & Foran, P.A.

Developing an appropriate trial strategy in a Maryland medical malpractice case takes legal knowledge and experience. It may also have a significant impact on the outcome of the case. A December 31, 2018 medical malpractice case illustrates the importance of following court orders and procedures during a trial.

In the case, the plaintiff’s actions during trial prompted the judge to admonish her while the jury was seated in the courtroom. The plaintiff’s counsel requested a mistrial, arguing that the exchange had unfairly influenced the jury against the plaintiff. The trial court denied the motion, and the issue was appealed to the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland.

The plaintiff in the case was the estate of a patient who had died while receiving medical care at the defendant’s hospital. The personal representative of the estate, who was the daughter of the patient, filed the action alleging that the defendant was negligent in providing medical treatment to her mother. Prior to trial, the defendant filed a motion to prevent admission of photographs of the patient’s skin wounds to the jury. The judge granted the motion, finding that the photographs could not be authenticated.

Maryland Plaintiff’s Agreement to Settle Lease Dispute Does Not Bar Personal Injury Claims of Her Son Against Landlords

February 11, 2019 | by Foran & Foran, P.A.

If the careless acts of another person or business have caused you or your child to suffer a physical injury, you may be able to hold them responsible. In a negligence lawsuit involving an injured child, an experienced Maryland personal injury lawyer can advise parents as to the proper legal action to take. In a December 7, 2018 case, the plaintiff filed suit against her landlords for injuries that occurred after her rental home became inhabitable due to mold infestation. The case was brought before the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland.

The plaintiff in the case resided with her young son in a home she rented from the defendants. She alleged that a few weeks after moving into the home, water began collecting and flooding into the kitchen and den. Despite her repeated complaints to the defendants, the problem was not resolved and the flooding persisted. Thereafter, her son began experiencing medical issues, including difficulties breathing, asthma-like symptoms, swelling, and rashes covering his body. A medical diagnosis revealed that he was allergic to a variety of toxic molds. Subsequent testing of the house confirmed the presence of extremely high levels of mold. Fortunately, the son’s conditions improved after they vacated the property.

The parties then pursued breach of lease and eviction proceedings against each other in district court. After the parties stated that they had reached an agreement to settle the matter, the district court dismissed the action. Specifically, the understanding was that the plaintiff would not pursue any further claims arising out of the tenancy in exchange for half of the rent escrow funds. Although the money was disbursed, the parties did not sign a written agreement.

Car Accident Victim Wins Maryland Personal Injury Claim, Seeks Additional Damages on Appeal

February 7, 2019 | by Foran & Foran, P.A.

Negligent drivers may be held liable for property damage, medical expenses, and other losses that they cause to others. In some Maryland personal injury cases, proving the extent of the injuries caused by the accident and the amount of damages is complicated. In a December 18, 2018 case, the plaintiff filed a negligence suit after he was injured in a car accident caused by the defendant. The matter came before the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland on the issues of damages and causation.

In the case, the defendant caused a multi-car accident when she failed to stop at a stop sign and collided with the plaintiff’s vehicle. The impact pushed the plaintiff’s vehicle off the road into a tree. The parties stipulated to the fact that the defendant was at fault for the accident. However, the plaintiff still had to establish that the accident caused the plaintiff’s injuries. The case was tried before a jury, which found the defendant negligent and awarded damages to the plaintiff in the amount of $20,000. The plaintiff appealed, as the jury award was less than the amount of damages he sought. The plaintiff argued that the trial court improperly ruled on evidentiary issues that affected his proof.

The plaintiff had designated an orthopedic surgeon to testify as an expert witness at trial. The expert had been suspended from practicing for a period of three years by both the Maryland State Board of Physicians and the American Association for Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS). During the pre-trial motions, the plaintiff asked the court to exclude the parts of the expert’s deposition where he was questioned regarding his suspension. The plaintiff contended that that the line of questioning violated the medical review committee privilege. The trial court agreed to redact some of the deposition, but allowed a question about whether he had been suspended from the AAOS.