Maryland Personal Injury Blog

Maryland Plaintiff Pursues Wrongful Death Claim Against Police for Failing to Investigate 911 Call

February 6, 2019 | by Foran & Foran, P.A.

In some cases, personal injuries arise out of the negligent actions of another person or entity. Victims generally have legal recourse against those responsible for their injuries, unless the law provides for immunity or another exception. In a November 28, 2018 Maryland wrongful death case, the plaintiff sued a police officer and police chief, alleging that they negligently caused the death of her daughter. The defendants argued that they were entitled to immunity and could not be sued for damages. After the circuit court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss, the plaintiff appealed to the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland.

In the case, the victim had called 911 and the police officer was dispatched to her apartment building. The officer attempted to enter the building, but found that the door was locked. He left without making contact with the victim. At some point, the victim went to the roof of her apartment building and either jumped, fell, or was pushed off. She was pronounced dead at the scene.

The plaintiff alleged that the police were negligent in failing to investigate the 911 call and failing to enter the building and make contact with the victim. The plaintiff also contended that the police did not provide adequate training or supervision for officers responding to 911 calls. The issues on appeal centered on the public duty doctrine and public official immunity.

Plaintiff Appeals Verdict in Maryland Medical Malpractice Case Arising From Amputated Leg

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

In a Maryland medical malpractice lawsuit, testimony from expert witnesses can be crucial to explain scientific issues to a jury and establish or refute an element of negligence. In a December 7, 2018 opinion, the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland considered whether the testimony of the defendants’ expert witness was properly allowed into a jury trial in a medical malpractice action. Ultimately, after hearing the testimony, as well as testimony from other experts, the jury found that the defendants were not negligent in providing medical care to the plaintiff. The plaintiff subsequently filed an appeal, challenging the admissibility of the expert’s testimony.

The plaintiff in the case had undergone a surgical removal of her right lung. A month later, she woke up with swelling and pain in her left leg and went to the emergency room. The ER doctor examined the plaintiff and completed a CT scan, which confirmed extensive blood clots in both of the plaintiff’s legs. As the plaintiff’s condition worsened, the hospital doctors concluded that her situation was too complex to handle without a vascular surgeon. Because there was no vascular surgeon on-call at the hospital at that time, arrangements were made for her to see a vascular surgeon in Baltimore.

While the plaintiff was waiting for an ambulance, the hospital’s own vascular surgeon became available on-call. Although he reviewed the plaintiff’s medical tests, he was not asked to examine the plaintiff and had no involvement in her treatment. When the plaintiff finally arrived at the Baltimore hospital, her left leg could not be saved and was ultimately amputated. The plaintiff filed a malpractice suit against the ER doctors and hospital, alleging that they did not do enough to treat her as she was waiting to be transported to Baltimore.

Public Duty Doctrine Shields Police Officers from Liability in Maryland Negligence Suit

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

To succeed in a Maryland negligence claim, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant had an obligation, or duty, to act in a certain manner according to the law. Generally, most people, businesses, and other entities have a duty to exercise reasonable care to avoid injury to another. In a December 3, 2018 Maryland wrongful death case, however, the issue of duty was more complicated.

The defendants in the case were Maryland police officers who had responded to a report of domestic assault involving the plaintiffs’ mother and her fiancé. The officers were outside of the house with the mother when her fiancé began firing gunshots at them from the upstairs window. The plaintiffs’ mother died as a result of a gunshot wound to the head.

The plaintiffs brought a civil suit against the officers, seeking to hold them liable for their roles leading to the murder of the plaintiffs’ mother by her fiancé. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs for $850,000, finding that the officers were negligent in failing to prevent their mother’s death. The defendants appealed, and the matter came before the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland.

Maryland Court Decision Highlights Significance of Discovery Deadlines in Personal Injury Case

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

A Maryland car accident victim may take legal action against a negligent driver to recover their medical expenses and other losses. To succeed, the plaintiff must present sufficient evidence to establish each element of a Maryland personal injury claim. In a November 15, 2018 car accident case, the Court of Special Appeals considered whether the circuit court erred by not allowing the plaintiff’s expert witness to testify. The issue was crucial, as the lack of a causation expert subsequently led the circuit court to dismiss the plaintiff’s negligence claims against the defendants.

The case arose out of a rear-end motor vehicle collision. One of the defendants was driving an automobile that struck the rear of the plaintiff’s car, causing the plaintiff to hit her head on the steering wheel. A few days later, the plaintiff began to feel dizzy and nauseous. She went to the emergency room and was diagnosed with a concussion. The plaintiff sought treatment from three other doctors, all of whom diagnosed her with a concussion, for fifteen months following the accident. The plaintiff also received psychiatric counseling to treat the anxiety, irritability, and cognitive difficulties that she reported after the accident.

Three years after the car accident, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the driver of the vehicle that rear-ended her car, the owner of the driver’s vehicle, and her insurance company. The plaintiff designated her doctor as an expert witness well before the deadline provided by the court. However, two days before trial, the plaintiff provided to the defendants a report from her doctor based on a medical exam that had taken place a month before. The defendants objected, arguing that there was no time to depose the doctor regarding her report before the trial date. The court agreed and excluded the testimony without continuing the trial to a later date. The defendants then moved for summary judgment reasoning that, without expert testimony, the plaintiff did not have any evidence that her injuries were caused by the accident. The trial court granted the motion.

Maryland Court Declines to Find Manufacturer Liable for Household Exposure to Asbestos Dust

January 31, 2019 | by Foran & Foran, P.A.

The untimely death of loved one can be especially tragic if it was likely preventable. In a November 2, 2018 case, the surviving daughters and estate of the decedent filed a Maryland wrongful death action against an asbestos product manufacturer after their mother passed away from malignant mesothelioma. The manufacturer supplied asbestos products to the company that employed the decedent’s husband, who used them for over thirty years in the course of his job. The asbestos products created dust that covered his clothes at the end of the work day.

In their lawsuit, the plaintiffs alleged that their mother’s malignant mesothelioma was caused by her exposure to asbestos fibers from the defendant’s products when she shook out and washed her husband’s clothing every day. For the defendant to be held liable for its negligence, the defendant must have had a responsibility, or duty, to the victim to act accordingly. The plaintiffs in the case claimed that the defendant was negligent in failing to warn the decedent of the harm caused by asbestos exposure.

After the plaintiffs presented their proof at trial, the defendant moved for judgment. The defendant argued that the plaintiffs had failed to prove that it owed a legal duty to warn household members of the dangers of asbestos exposure. The trial court agreed and entered judgment in favor of the defendant, and the plaintiffs appealed.

Maryland Plaintiff Files Lead Paint Suit Against Personal Representative of Property Owner

January 30, 2019 | by Foran & Foran, P.A.

In some cases, determining which defendants may be held liable for injuries in a Maryland negligence claim is an issue for the courts. In a November 9, 2018 case, the plaintiff alleged that he contracted lead paint poisoning while living at a property between 1995 and 1996. The owner of the property had passed away in 1993, and the property was run by the personal representatives of his estate until 1997. The plaintiff, therefore, sued the personal representatives for his injuries. Eventually, the plaintiff abandoned his claims against all but one of the defendants. When the circuit court entered summary judgment in favor of the remaining personal representative, the plaintiff appealed.

The plaintiff had filed claims based on negligence and violations of the Maryland Consumer Protection Act (MCPA), alleging that the defendant, while serving as co-personal representative of the property, had owned, controlled, or managed the property. On appeal, the issue for the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland was whether the plaintiff could bring suit against the personal representative of the property owner’s estate for lead paint poisoning.

Under the local housing code, property owners and operators have a duty to provide a residence that is free from chipping, flaking, or peeling paint. In order to be held personally liable for a breach of this duty and any resulting harm, therefore, the defendant must fall under the definition of an owner or operator.

Maryland Court Considers Whether Dismissal Was Appropriate in Medical Malpractice Case

January 29, 2019 | by Foran & Foran, P.A.

Unlike general personal injury and negligence cases, Maryland medical malpractice actions are typically subject to the Health Care Malpractice Claims Act (Act), which has a few different procedural requirements. In an August 2, 2018 case, the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland discussed the supplemental certificate of a qualified expert, which must be filed within 15 days after the deadline for discovery. The plaintiff in the case had failed to file a supplemental certificate within the timeframe provided by the Act. This ultimately led to the dismissal of her medical malpractice claim against the defendants.

The plaintiff had underwent gastrectomy surgery, which was performed by the defendant, a medical physician. A few weeks after the surgery, the plaintiff was diagnosed with a hernia at the site of the gastrectomy. During a procedure to repair the plaintiff’s condition, the defendant lacerated her aorta, causing her to lose 50 percent of her blood. She experienced severe pain and went through several periods of rehabilitation.

The plaintiff filed a medical malpractice complaint against the doctor and hospital in November of 2015. Pursuant to a scheduling order issued by the circuit court, discovery ended in January of 2017. Pursuant to the Act, therefore, the plaintiff was required to submit a supplemental certificate of a qualified expert within 15 days. When she failed to both file the certificate and ask for an extension, the defendants moved to dismiss her claim. The plaintiff responded by opposing the motion and moving for a brief extension of time to file the required certificate. The plaintiff explained that, because her attorney practiced primarily out of state and was unfamiliar with the statutory requirements, she had good cause to receive an extension of time. The plaintiff also presented her supplemental certificate of an expert. Nevertheless, finding that the plaintiff did not have good cause for an extension, the circuit court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss.

Compensatory Damages Awarded to Plaintiff for Car Accident Upheld on Appeal in Maryland Auto Accident Case

January 28, 2019 | by Foran & Foran, P.A.

The legal knowledge of a skilled Maryland personal injury attorney is often crucial to present the case persuasively to a jury and object to inadmissible evidence. In a recent Maryland car accident case, the plaintiff obtained a favorable jury verdict on the issues of her damages. On appeal, the defendant argued that the plaintiff should not have been permitted to introduce evidence of bias regarding the relationship between the defendant’s expert witness and the defendant’s auto insurance company. The Court of Special Appeals of Maryland considered the issue in an opinion released on October 9, 2018.

The plaintiff in the case was a passenger in the backseat of a vehicle driven by the defendant, which rear-ended another vehicle on the highway. The plaintiff received medical treatment the day after the accident for injuries to her knee, neck, and back. The plaintiff filed a personal injury suit against the defendant, alleging that he negligently struck the vehicle in front of him, thereby causing her injuries.

The defendant conceded that he was liable for the plaintiff’s injuries, and the case proceeded to trial on the issue of the plaintiff’s damages. The parties both produced expert witnesses who testified as to the plaintiff’s injuries. During cross-examination, the plaintiff questioned the defendant’s expert witness about an investment of over one million dollars that he received for his corporation from the defendant’s insurance company. The defendant’s objection to the line of questioning was overruled by the trial court. Ultimately, the jury awarded the plaintiff compensatory damages in the amount of $353,000. The defendant brought the subsequent appeal.

Maryland Plaintiff Wins Negligence Suit Against County for Injuries Caused by Water Meter

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

Injured plaintiffs may hold individuals, businesses, and entities liable for their negligence in a Maryland personal injury suit. When the defendant is the county, city, or government, however, the issue of governmental immunity may arise. In a November 1, 2018 case, the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland considered whether a local County was immune from a negligence claim brought by an injured pedestrian. The County appealed the issue after the plaintiff won her suit and was awarded over $50,000 for her injuries.

The plaintiff in the case was injured when she stepped on a water meter lid that flipped open, causing her leg to fall into the hole. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the County, alleging that her injuries resulted from its negligence with respect to the construction, installation, and maintenance of the water meter lid. At trial, the plaintiff introduced evidence that the County had ignored the requirements of its own design manual regarding the selection and installation of the water meter lid. The jury determined that the County was negligent, and found in favor of the plaintiff. The County subsequently filed an appeal, arguing that it was protected from suit by governmental immunity.

While the state of Maryland has absolute immunity from claims with few exceptions, counties are immune only when performing governmental functions, as opposed to proprietary. Generally, the government’s obligation to maintain and keep streets, sidewalks, footways, and adjoining areas in a reasonably safe condition has been treated as proprietary, whereas the maintenance of public parks and the like has been treated as a governmental function. In the instant case, the water meter at issue was located on a grassy strip at the end of a sidewalk, but not on a paved location.

Family Wins Lawsuit Against Paramedics for Gross Negligence in Maryland Wrongful Death Case

January 26, 2019 | by Foran & Foran, P.A.

Under the Maryland Fire and Rescue Company Act, entities that provide emergency services may not be held liable for simple negligence in a civil lawsuit. However, they may face civil liability if their actions are grossly negligent. In an October 1, 2018 Maryland wrongful death case, the jury found two paramedics were grossly negligent in responding to the decedent’s emergency. Despite the jury verdict, the judge entered a judgment in favor of the defendants, concluding that the evidence was insufficient. The plaintiffs ultimately prevailed on their appeal.

In the case, the decedent had experienced chest pains and called 911. The defendants were dispatched to the decedent’s home and transported him to the hospital by ambulance. In the ambulance, the defendants checked the decedent’s initial vital signs and concluded that he was in stable condition. The defendants alerted hospital staff that the reason for the decedent’s visit was heartburn. As the decedent was waiting in the emergency room with the defendants, he continued to complain of chest pains and soon became unconscious. He was immediately treated by hospital staff but, despite life-saving efforts, passed away. It was later revealed that he had died of a heart attack.

The surviving family members brought suit against the paramedics and the city, alleging gross negligence due to their emergency response. On appeal, the plaintiffs contended that the trial court erred by entering judgment for the defendants on the basis of insufficient evidence of gross negligence. The question for the appeals court, therefore, was whether or not the evidence at trial permitted only one inference, which was that the defendants were not grossly negligent.