Maryland Personal Injury Blog

Maryland Plaintiff Fails to Prove Causation in Negligence Action

March 18, 2016 | by Foran & Foran, P.A.

The Court of Special Appeals of Maryland recently ruled on an appeal in a personal injury case in Smith v. Chimes, Inc. (Md. Ct. Spec. App. Jan. 5, 2016). The plaintiff in Smith was an intellectually disabled woman who participated in an employment program sponsored by one of the defendants. In November 2010, the plaintiff was being transported to her employment by bus when she broke her shinbone. The plaintiff alleged that she had struck another passenger on the bus because he would not stop touching her, and the passenger shoved her to the ground, causing her injury. The plaintiff also claimed that she had previously complained to the bus driver and employees of the defendant that another passenger on the bus frequently harassed and touched her.

In September 2013, the plaintiff brought claims against the defendants to recover compensation for that injury, as well as a second injury that occurred over a year later, contending that her knee was so weakened that it gave way and caused her to fall down the stairs. Specifically, the plaintiff brought negligence claims against the bus driver for failing to prevent the passenger from injuring her, failing to stop the passenger once the altercation was in progress, and ignoring the plaintiff’s request for medical attention after the injury. In addition, the plaintiff brought a claim against the bus driver’s employer on a theory of vicarious liability and negligent entrustment of the bus to the driver. The plaintiff filed negligence claims against the employment program as well, alleging vicarious liability on the basis of its contract to provide transportation to its employees.

Maryland Court of Special Appeals Holds Lower Court Erred in Setting Aside $926,000 Jury Award in Medical Malpractice Case

March 17, 2016 | by Foran & Foran, P.A.

In a recent opinion, the Maryland Court of Special Appeals held that a trial court erred in setting aside a jury verdict in favor of the plaintiffs and entering judgment for the defendants in a medical malpractice action. In Gibau v. Falik, (Md. Ct. Spec. App. Dec. 22, 2015), the decedent was hospitalized after suffering an assault and eventually died. The decedent’s survivors brought a wrongful death action based on the alleged medical malpractice of the treating physician. The plaintiffs claimed that the defendant breached the standard of care when he decided not to administer anti-seizure medication to the decedent, and when he failed to transfer the decedent back to the intensive care unit on the morning of his death. The plaintiffs claimed that the alleged medical malpractice caused the decedent to suffer a seizure, which ultimately resulted in his death.

After trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs in the amount of $926,640. The circuit court then granted the defendant’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, but on grounds that were not raised by the defendant. Instead, the circuit court concluded that no reasonable trier of fact could have found that the defendant breached the standard of care in the case, nor that the alleged breach was a causative factor in the defendant’s death.

Maryland Court Reviews Jury Verdict in Motorcycle Accident Case

March 16, 2016 | by Foran & Foran, P.A.

The Maryland Court of Special Appeals recently reviewed a jury decision finding that a defendant was not negligent in causing a car accident with the plaintiff. In Clark v. Dulaney, the parties were driving towards each other in opposite directions on the same two-lane road. An SUV in front of the plaintiff stopped to make a left turn at the same time the defendant’s minivan stopped to make a left turn. The plaintiff passed the SUV on his motorcycle, hitting the rear of the defendant’s minivan as she made a left turn. The plaintiff brought a personal injury lawsuit against the defendant, alleging that she failed to yield to the right of way of the plaintiff, which resulted in an accident that injured the plaintiff. After trial, the jury returned its verdict in favor of the defendant, finding that she was not negligent, nor was her negligence the proximate cause of the accident.

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland Reverses Jury Verdict in Slip and Fall Case

March 15, 2016 | by Foran & Foran, P.A.

The Maryland Court of Special Appeals recently reviewed a verdict in which the jury found in favor of the plaintiff in a personal injury claim. In Univ. Specialty Hosp, Inc. v. Rheubottom (Md. Ct. Spec. App. Feb. 10, 2016), the plaintiff brought a negligence action against a hospital, seeking damages for injuries she suffered when she slipped and fell while exiting the hospital. After a trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff and awarded damages for medical expenses and pain and suffering. The hospital moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, contending that the jury’s verdict was not supported by the evidence presented at trial. The trial court denied the motion, and the hospital appealed.

To establish a negligence claim in Maryland, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant owed her a duty of care, the defendant breached that duty, the defendant’s action caused the plaintiff’s injury, and the plaintiff suffered damages. In premises liability cases, the duty owed to a plaintiff depends on the circumstances of the parties’ relationship. A business invitee is defined as one invited or permitted to enter another’s property for purposes related to the property owner’s business.

In Univ. Specialty Hosp, Inc. v. Rheubottom, the plaintiff was a business invitee of the hospital. Accordingly, the hospital owned her a duty to use reasonable and ordinary care to keep its premises safe and protect her from harm caused by an unreasonable risk that the plaintiff, by exercising ordinary care for her own safety, would not discover. However, no presumption of negligence on the part of the property owner arises merely from a showing that an injury was sustained on the premises. The plaintiff, therefore, bears the burden of producing evidence from which the jury could infer that the hospital created the dangerous condition or had actual or constructive knowledge of its existence.

Maryland Court Rules Police Officers Immune from Liability in Personal Injury Case

March 15, 2016 | by Foran & Foran, P.A.

The Court of Special Appeals of Maryland recently ruled on an appeal in a personal injury claim against two Baltimore City police officers. In Freedman v. Wright (Md. Ct. Spec. App. Jan. 27, 2016), the plaintiff awoke to a fire in her apartment building. She cried for help from her third-story window, and two police officers arrived on the ground below her window. The plaintiff alleged that the officers ordered her to jump and stated that she would be okay. However, the plaintiff hit the ground when the officers did not catch or break her fall, and as a result, she suffered various injuries. The plaintiff brought suit against the officers and the Baltimore City Police Department. The trial court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss, and the plaintiff appealed.

Public official immunity is a common-law doctrine that limits certain officials’ liability for official acts. An official must satisfy three conditions to qualify for immunity: (1) he or she must be a public official; (2) his or her tortious conduct must have occurred while performing discretionary acts in furtherance of official duties; (3) the acts must be done without malice or gross negligence. Gross negligence has been defined as an intentional failure to perform a manifest duty in reckless disregard of the consequences affecting the life or property of another, without the exertion of any effort to avoid them.

Maryland Court of Special Appeals Reviews Expert Testimony in Automobile Accident Case

March 15, 2016 | by Foran & Foran, P.A.

In a recent car accident case, the Maryland Court of Special Appeals was presented with the question of whether the trial court abused its discretion in allowing the defendant’s medical expert to testify about a photograph of the damage to the vehicle in which the plaintiff was riding. In Fusha v. Leonard (Md. Ct. Spec. App. Sept. 24, 2015), the plaintiff was a passenger in a car that was rear-ended by a vehicle operated by the defendant. The plaintiff brought a personal injury claim against the defendant, alleging that his negligence caused her injuries.

The parties agreed that the defendant was at fault for the accident. The issue for the jury was the amount of the plaintiff’s damages, if any. At trial, the defendant offered the expert testimony of an orthopedic surgeon, who provided his opinion as to whether the plaintiff’s injuries were caused by the collision. The expert based part of his opinion on a photograph of the plaintiff’s vehicle that was admitted into evidence. The plaintiff objected to the testimony of the expert regarding the impact that was sustained to the upper part of the truck of her vehicle, and the trial court overruled that objection. At the conclusion of the trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendant. The plaintiff then appealed the issue of the expert’s testimony to the Maryland Court of Special Appeals, contending that he was not an expert in accident reconstruction and was not qualified to testify as to the nature or severity of the collision.

Maryland Court Rules in Favor of Insureds, Awards Underinsured Motorist Coverage in Moped and Motor Scooter Cases

December 14, 2015 | by Foran & Foran, P.A.

The Maryland Court of Special Appeals reviewed two cases against the same insurance company, consolidated on appeal, regarding underinsured motorist coverage for damages suffered as the result of a car accident in which the insureds were operating a moped and a motor scooter. In Schiffler v. Erie, the plaintiff was riding his moped to work when a jeep collided with him, fracturing the plaintiff’s leg. The jeep driver’s insurance company tendered the policy limits to the plaintiff in the amount of $100,000. The plaintiff then sought underinsured motorist coverage from his own insurance company, which denied the claim, contending that coverage was excluded by the plaintiff’s policy. In Furman v. Erie, the facts were nearly identical except that the plaintiff in the case was riding a motor scooter. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the insurance company, and the plaintiffs appealed.

A moped is defined as a bicycle operated by human power with the assistance of a motor, while a motor scooter is a nonpedal vehicle with a motor and automatic transmission. At the time of the two accidents, neither a moped nor a motor scooter was considered a motor vehicle under the Maryland Motor Vehicle Laws. Prior to October 12, 2012, therefore, owners of mopeds and motor scooters were not required by law to maintain insurance coverage for either type of vehicle, and neither plaintiff had purchased insurance expressly covering the moped and motor scooter involved in the accidents.

The insurance policies at issue in the cases excluded underinsured motorist coverage if the insured was injured while operating an “owned-but-uninsured” vehicle. The plaintiffs argued that the policy exclusion is contrary to the minimum coverage required by statutes applicable to operators of mopeds and motor scooters in Maryland at the time of the accident. Specifically, they argued that the statutory minimum coverage provisions precluded the defendant from relying upon the “owned-but-uninsured” exclusion in their policies to deny underinsured motorist claims for injuries occurring as a result of being hit by an underinsured driver while operating mopeds and motor scooters. The insurance company, on the other hand, argued that the exclusion is expressly authorized by Md. Code Ann., Ins. § 19-509(f), which provides that an insurer may exclude uninsured motorist benefits for an injury that occurs when the insured is occupying an uninsured motor vehicle that is owned by the insured.

Maryland Court Decides Issue of Insurance Coverage in Truck Accident

December 12, 2015 | by Foran & Foran, P.A.

The Maryland Court of Special Appeals reviewed a wrongful death case involving a truck accident and addressed the issue of whether the defendant had insurance coverage. In Glass v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Ins. Co. (Md. Ct. Spec. App. Aug. 5, 2015), the defendant’s employee was driving the company delivery van and lost control of it. The van swerved across the center lines and hit the victim’s vehicle head-on. The victim died of injuries caused by the accident shortly thereafter. The victim’s husband brought a personal injury negligence and wrongful death suit against the employee and the employer, and he later amended the complaint to include the employer’s insurer.

The parties disputed whether the accident was covered under the business policy issued by the insurer, due to the unintended entanglement of two separate legal entities of the employer. In 2004, the employer created a general partnership. The general partnership purchased and owned the van driven by the employee, as well as the insurance policy in effect at the time of the accident. However, when the employer formed an LLC in 2006, intending to merge the general partnership with the LLC, it was never properly completed. As a result, both companies remained in existence as separate legal entities, and the general partnership held title to the van and the insurance policy. Although the employer began conducting business in the name of the LLC, it was performing the contractual obligations of the general partnership.

The parties filed motions for declaratory judgment for the trial court to decide the issue of insurance coverage. After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court found that at the time of the accident, the company was conducting business on behalf of the general partnership, and the van was owned by the general partnership. Therefore, the court held, the accident was not covered under the business policy through an exemption to a coverage exclusion for injuries arising out of the use of a non-owned automobile.

Maryland Court Reviews Appeal in Car Accident Case

December 10, 2015 | by Foran & Foran, P.A.

The Court of Special Appeals of Maryland recently ruled on an appeal in a personal injury case that arose out of a car accident. In Chaffman v. Estrada-Bernales (Md. Ct. Spec. App. Nov. 17, 2015), the plaintiff and his wife were stopped at a red light when the defendant’s vehicle rear-ended their SUV. The day after the accident, the plaintiff experienced stiffness in his right side, neck, and lower back and visited his primary care physician, who referred him to a chiropractor. After four to six weeks of chiropractic treatment, the plaintiff was referred to a pain management specialist and also underwent a surgical procedure to alleviate the pain. The plaintiff filed suit against the defendant, alleging that the plaintiff had sustained severe and permanent injuries as a result of the accident.

The plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment against the defendant, arguing that since the defendant failed to answer the plaintiff’s request for admissions, its contents were deemed admitted. The defendant then filed an opposition to the motion and provided the plaintiff with a response to his request for admissions. The trial court ruled that the defendant had breached a duty of care owed to the plaintiff but left the issue of damages to the jury. After trial, the jury found that the plaintiff was not injured in the accident and awarded no damages. The plaintiff appealed the verdict, contending that the judge erred by not granting his motion for summary judgment on the issue of causation and damages when the defendant failed to timely answer the request for admissions, and by not allowing the plaintiff to rebut a misleading closing argument made by the defendant’s counsel.

Maryland Court of Special Appeals Upholds Majority of Million-Dollar Jury Verdict in Medical Malpractice Case

December 9, 2015 | by Foran & Foran, P.A.

The Court of Special Appeals of Maryland reviewed a medical malpractice case, Upper Chesapeake Health Center, Inc. v. Gargiulo, et al., in which the survivors and estate of the victim were awarded a total of $908,238.05 in damages by the jury. On appeal, the defendants argued a number of issues, and the plaintiffs presented additional issues in a cross-appeal. Ultimately, the court vacated the judgment with respect to the damages awarded for pain and suffering to the estate, but otherwise it affirmed the judgment in favor of the plaintiffs.

In Upper Chesapeake Health Center, Inc. v. Gargiulo, et al., the patient was admitted to the hospital with infected ulcers, a resulting complication of her multiple sclerosis. The patient’s condition deteriorated during hospitalization, until the doctors informed her family that she was a candidate for hospice care. Later that day, the doctors initiated hospice care, discontinuing the patient’s antibiotics and administering increased doses of painkillers. A few days later, the patient died. The survivors brought a wrongful death suit against the patient’s doctors and the hospital based on medical malpractice, alleging that the patient’s death was caused by the rapid increase of pain medications.