Maryland Personal Injury Blog

Maryland Plaintiff Alleges Negligence Claim Against University After Trip and Fall Injury

May 31, 2021 | by Foran & Foran, P.A.

Business entities may be liable for injuries caused by a dangerous condition on their property. In a March 26, 2021 Maryland personal injury case, the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland considered whether an unpainted rollover curb constituted an unreasonable risk to a student. The issue was appealed after the lower court ruled that, as a matter of law, the unpainted curb was not a dangerous condition.

The plaintiff in the case was injured when she tripped on an unpainted rollover curb in the parking lot of a university student center. A rollover curb consists of a gradual incline from street level up to the sidewalk. Some of the curbs on the perimeter of the parking lot were painted yellow to delineate fire lanes, areas in which parking was prohibited to allow access for fire trucks and emergency vehicles. The plaintiff stated that she tripped over an unpainted section of a rollover curb near or adjoining a yellow-painted curb.

The plaintiff brought a negligence action against the university, claiming that it breached its duty to protect against latent, unreasonable risks. The university moved for summary judgment, arguing that it did not breach its duty of care. After the circuit court granted summary judgment for the university, the plaintiff appealed.

Plaintiff Wins Maryland Wrongful Death Case After Police Chase Leads to Fatal Car Accident

May 30, 2021 | by Foran & Foran, P.A.

Reckless or negligent driving can cause accidents that result in serious injuries or even death to passengers. In a March 8, 2021 opinion, the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland reviewed a wrongful death case arising out of a fatal car accident. The wife of the decedent filed the lawsuit against the police officers involved in a high-speed chase that led up to the vehicle collision. After a jury awarded damages of over $475,000 to the plaintiff, the trial court entered judgment notwithstanding the verdict for the defendants, effectively negating the jury verdict. The plaintiff appealed the issue to the higher court.

On the night of the accident, the defendant was pulling over a motorist for driving after dark without headlights on. The defendant called for back up after noticing that the driver had not put his SUV in park, and a second officer pulled up shortly thereafter. At that point, the driver drove away and accelerated at a high rate of speed. The defendant gave a thumbs up and yelled to a third officer who had just arrived to “go, go!” The officers were pursuing the SUV when the driver lost control, went airborne, and crashed into the decedent’s car.

At trial, the plaintiffs presented evidence that the high speed chase of the driver was prohibited by a written policy of the police department. The jury found the defendant negligent in instituting a police pursuit of the driver, which resulted in the fatal accident and death of the decedent. After the verdict, the defendant argued that he was entitled to statutory immunity. The trial court granted judgment for the defendant after ruling that he was immune based on common law and Maryland law.

Injured Shopper Files Negligence Suit Against Maryland Supermarket

May 26, 2021 | by Foran & Foran, P.A.

Depending on the circumstances of a Maryland personal injury accident, negligence may be alleged against an employer based on a theory of vicarious liability. In a February 25, 2021 opinion, the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland considered whether the defendant, a supermarket owner, could be held vicariously liable for injuries allegedly caused by a third-party vendor. The matter came on appeal after the jury found in favor of the plaintiff and awarded her nearly $400,000 in damages.

The plaintiff in the case was injured while shopping at a supermarket owned and operated by the defendant. The injury occurred in the frozen-foods aisle. The plaintiff testified that as she turned to put an item in her basket, she was struck in the back, which caused her to fall to the ground. The plaintiff believed that she was struck by the stock cart of a delivery man whom she had noticed prior to her fall. The man, who was not an employee but a third-party vendor delivering soda products to the supermarket, denied striking the plaintiff.

The plaintiff alleged that the supermarket was liable as a result of negligence based on alternative theories of premises liability and vicarious liability. After the close of evidence at trial, the circuit court granted judgment for the defendant on the issue of premises liability. The remaining issue was submitted to the jury, which found that the defendant was vicariously liable for the negligence of its vendor.

Plaintiff’s Alleged Negligence No Bar to Recovery for Personal Injuries in Maryland Car Accident Case

May 25, 2021 | by Foran & Foran, P.A.

A person who is injured in an auto accident may be able to recover damages against the negligent driver who caused the collision. Negligence on the part of the injured driver is not necessarily a bar to recovering damages. In a February 26, 2021 negligence case, the Court of Appeals of Maryland considered the effect of the plaintiff’s alleged negligence with respect to a multi-vehicle collision.

The plaintiff in the case was driving on a three-lane boulevard in rush hour traffic when her mini-van overheated and stalled in the right lane. The road did not have any shoulder onto which she could move the van. The driver of the car behind the plaintiff’s van attempted to move into the middle lane just as a pick-up truck from the far left lane merged into the same middle lane. The truck collided with the car, causing the car to be propelled into the plaintiff’s stalled mini-van.

The plaintiff filed a personal injury action against the drivers of the car and the truck, alleging negligence. The defendants, in turn, claimed that the plaintiff was contributorily negligent in causing the accident. The circuit court entered summary judgment in favor of the defendants, finding that the plaintiff had been negligent. The plaintiff then appealed the decision.

Maryland Plaintiff Sues Bar for Personal Injuries Allegedly Caused by Employee

May 20, 2021 | by Foran & Foran, P.A.

In some situations, an employer may be liable for a personal injury caused by one of its employees within the scope of their employment. This type of negligence suit is based on a theory of vicarious liability. In a March 3, 2021 opinion, the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland reviewed a case involving an alleged battery that occurred at a bar. The plaintiff claimed that the owner of the bar was liable for her injuries, which she alleged were inflicted by one of its employees. The matter came before the court on an appeal filed by the plaintiff following a jury verdict in favor of the defendant.

The plaintiff in the case was attending a New Year’s Eve party with some friends at a bar operated by the defendant. She had been a customer of the bar for several years and knew many of the employees. One of the people she recognized as an employee approached her and grabbed her arm, causing her to fall to the ground. The plaintiff suffered ankle injuries as a result of the fall.

The plaintiff sued the bar for her injuries, alleging that the person who grabbed her was an employee, agent, or servant of the bar and was acting within the scope and during the course of his employment. The defendant, however, claimed that it had fired the person identified by the plaintiff approximately seven months before the incident. After a three-day trial, the jury determined that the person was an employee of the bar on the date in question, but that his actions were not within the scope of his employment. The jury ultimately found the defendant not liable for the plaintiff’s injuries.

Plaintiffs Proceed with Negligence Lawsuit Arising Out of Slip and Fall at Maryland Restaurant

May 14, 2021 | by Foran & Foran, P.A.

To defeat a motion for summary judgment in a personal injury suit, the plaintiff must show sufficient evidence exists to support their claim. In a February 1, 2021 opinion, the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland considered a summary judgment motion filed by the defendants in a personal injury case. The plaintiffs in the case brought their Maryland negligence claim in federal court against the owners of a restaurant after allegedly suffering injuries in a slip and fall accident.

The plaintiffs in the case visited a Maryland restaurant known for having peanuts on the floor. Complimentary peanuts were served during all hours of operation, and customers were permitted to discard peanut shells on the floor of the restaurant. While waiting to be seated, the plaintiffs made their way to the restrooms. Before reaching the restroom, the plaintiff fell on the hardwood flooring and landed on her right hip, with her right foot twisted behind her. The plaintiff testified that she had oily stains on the right side of her clothing, leading her to believe that she fell in peanut oil.

In their suit, the plaintiffs claimed that the restaurant was negligent by failing to protect her from a dangerous condition that allegedly caused her injuries. To succeed on their Maryland negligence claim, the plaintiffs must establish: (1) that the defendant was under a duty to protect the plaintiff from injury, (2) that the defendant breached that duty, (3) that the plaintiff suffered actual injury or loss, and (4) that the loss or injury proximately resulted from the defendant’s breach of duty. Insofar as the plaintiff was a business invitee, the restaurant was required to use reasonable care to protect the plaintiff from from injury caused by an unreasonable risk that she would be unlikely to perceive in the exercise of ordinary care for her own safety, and about which the restaurant knows or could have discovered.

Maryland Court Finds No Error in Allowing Vocational Expert to Testify in Lead-Based Paint Case

May 10, 2021 | by Foran & Foran, P.A.

In a negligence lawsuit, the testimony of an expert witness may be crucial to provide evidence supporting or refuting the allegations. A qualified expert may testify as to the standard of care, causation, damages, and/or other elements of the claim. In a February 2, 2021 Maryland personal injury case, the Court of Special Appeals considered whether the opinion testimony of an expert was properly allowed by the trial court. The appeal was brought by the defendant after a jury awarded damages to the plaintiff resulting from his exposure to lead paint.

The plaintiff in the case had resided in a property owned by the defendant from his birth in December of 1991 to March of 1993. The plaintiff claimed that as a result of his exposure to chipping, lead-based paint at the property, he suffered permanent cognitive deficits. The plaintiff further alleged that the defendant’s negligence in failing to remove the lead-based paint from the property was a substantial contributing factor in causing his injuries.

At trial, the plaintiff presented testimony from multiple expert witnesses, including an expert in the field of lead-based paint detection, a clinical psychologist, a neurodevelopment pediatrician and a vocational rehabilitation consultant. The jury ultimately returned a verdict finding that the defendant was negligent and awarded the plaintiff nearly $885,000 in future noneconomic damages and past damages.

Maryland Plaintiffs Assert Wrongful Death Action Against Landlord After Apartment Shootings

May 8, 2021 | by Foran & Foran, P.A.

Property owners generally have a duty to exercise care to protect invitees from dangerous conditions on the premises. In a January 28, 2021 Maryland wrongful death case, the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland explained the circumstances under which a property owner may be held liable for the criminal acts of a third party.

The lawsuit was brought by the estates of two teenagers who were shot and killed by an unknown assailant while standing outside of an apartment building owned by the defendant. Prior to the teens’ deaths, the defendant had known of prior violent crimes occurring outside of the apartment buildings, common areas, and parking areas. The plaintiffs claimed that in light of the history of crime at the apartment complex, the defendant was negligent in failing to take sufficient security measures to protect them from criminal activity at the complex. After the circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant, the plaintiffs appealed.

In a negligence action in Maryland, the plaintiff bears the burden of proving that the defendant was under a duty to protect the plaintiff from injury, that the defendant breached that duty, and that the plaintiff suffered actual injury or loss as a proximate result of the defendant’s breach of that duty.

Maryland Court Explains Doctrine of Informed Consent in Medical Malpractice Case

May 7, 2021 | by Foran & Foran, P.A.

A Maryland medical malpractice claim based on the lack of informed consent can be complicated in some cases, particularly when the patient is a minor. In a February 1, 2021 opinion, the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland analyzed the duty of healthcare professionals and the doctrine of informed consent in Maryland.

The sixteen-year-old plaintiff in the case had been diagnosed with early-onset preeclampsia during the second trimester of her pregnancy. The medical team met with the plaintiff and her mother to discuss the treatment options, which included terminating the pregnancy, inducing labor for vaginal delivery, or cesarean section. Although her doctors continued to recommend a cesarean section for the wellbeing of the fetus, the plaintiff repeatedly confirmed her decision to avoid the procedure. In addition, the plaintiff signed two consent forms explicitly declining a cesarean section with the understanding that inducing vaginal delivery would impose additional stress on the fetus and that the infant would have a better chance of survival if a cesarean section was performed. Following induced vaginal labor, the baby was born with severe mental and physical disabilities that require life-long dependent and medical care.

The plaintiff filed suit against the hospital, claiming that the hospital had violated her right to informed consent with respect to her delivery options. The jury found in favor of the plaintiff and awarded damages of approximately 230 million dollars. The hospital appealed on the grounds that the evidence was insufficient to support the jury’s findings on the issue of breach of informed consent.

Maryland Court Affirms $350,000 Award to Plaintiff for Injuries from Metal Screw in Her Food

May 6, 2021 | by Foran & Foran, P.A.

Non-economic damages, such as pain and suffering, may be awarded in a Maryland personal injury lawsuit to compensate injured plaintiffs and their families for intangible losses. Damages for pain and suffering, although not easily quantified by a dollar amount, can rest on the credibility of the plaintiff’s testimony, as in a January 6, 2021, personal injury case. After the jury in the case awarded $350,000 to the plaintiff for non-economic damages, the defendant filed a motion to reduce the judgment. The trial court denied the motion, and the defendant appealed the matter to the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland.

The plaintiff in the case was dining at a restaurant owned by the defendant. As she was eating a nacho appetizer, she bit into an industrial metal screw that had separated from the machine in the kitchen that tosses tortilla chips. The pain was immediate and searing. She incurred injuries to the upper left part of her mouth that required two root canals and three crowns.

The plaintiff filed a personal injury suit against the defendant, seeking damages to compensate her for her medical expenses, lost wages, and pain and suffering. The defendant conceded that it owed the plaintiff a duty of care and that it had breached this duty. Before trial, the plaintiff withdrew her claims for past medical expenses and lost wages, leaving non-economic damages as the only component of her requested damages. The sole issues for the jury, therefore, were whether the screw proximately caused the plaintiff’s injuries, and if so, the amount, if any, of non-economic damages to award the plaintiff. After a three-day trial, the jury returned a verdict of $350,000.