Car Accidents

Maryland Court Keeps Out Important Testimony Favorable to the Plaintiff in Hit and Run Accident

June 25, 2014 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

In a recent case in front of the Maryland Court of Appeals, the court held that testimony from witnesses that the driver of the car causing the accident fled the scene and then returned a short time later laughing before he then left again, was inadmissible in a claim for damages against that driver.

In the case Alban v. Fiels, the Albans were an elderly couple who were hit while driving in their truck by Mr. Fiels. The Albans’ vehicle sustained more damages than Fiels, and they were immobilized. In fact, Mrs. Alban was stuck in the car until firefighters came to extricate her.

Mr. Fiels fled the scene but did so down a road that had no outlet. Knowing that the road the driver fled down had no outlet, a nearby witness waited for the driver to return. When he did, the witness noticed that the driver slowed down and then sped off, laughing.

Maryland High Court Refuses to Hold Bar Liable for Drunken Patron Actions

July 26, 2013 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

The Maryland Court of Appeals refused to create a “dram shop” law when it ruled earlier this month that a bar cannot be held liable for the actions of a drunken patron after he or she departs.

The case was originally argued in March, on behalf of a family whose 10 year old was killed during a car crash on I-270 back in 2008. The driver responsible for the young girl’s death had been served 20 drinks at a local bar prior to getting behind the wheel.

The court held that individuals should solely be held responsible for their own decisions and actions. In addition, the court determined that General Assembly is the venue most proper in which to create new laws, not the court.

The dissenting opinion argued that this was a lost to ensure bars were held accountable for protecting the public from overly intoxicated customers. The judge wrote, “this case presented the opportunity to impose dram shop liability on commercial vendors of alcohol” which served their patrons even after they were visibly impaired as a result of their alcohol consumption. Further, according to a study cited in the dissent, studies have shown that these types of laws could potentially lead to 14 deaths fewer in Maryland every year.

Man Receives 10 Year Sentence For Deadly DUI in Potential Wrongful Death Case

April 8, 2013 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Last week a Missouri man received a heavy sentence for his role in a tragic car accident that he allegedly caused in September of 2011. He received a sentence of 10 years in prison for his role in the DWI crash that killed two people and injured five. The defendant pleaded guilty in November to the charges, which included two counts of involuntary manslaughter and five counts of second-degree assault.

Based on the evidence at the scene and witness accounts, the police estimate that the man was driving nearly 100 miles per hour when the collision occurred. His car rear ended the Chevy Tahoe, containing the two men and other passengers, which caused the Tahoe to flip over several times.

He received a 10 year sentence for each count of involuntary manslaughter and seven years for each of the five counts of second-degree assault. The 17 months which he has already served in jail will be counted as time served, and all of the sentences will be served concurrently.

The assistant prosecuting attorney in the case said that 10 years was the heaviest sentence he had ever seen in a DWI and involuntary manslaughter case, adding that, “Part of it was that he had a prior DWI, and the fact that he killed two people and injured five.” He also stated that under Missouri law, the man must serve at least 85 percent of his sentence before becoming eligible for parole.

Although the outcome in this particular case addresses the sentencing reached as a result of the criminal justice system, the families in this case also likely have wrongful death claims against the driver in this tragic car accident.

Father’s Wrongful Death Lawsuit for Daughter Finally Makes It to Trial, but Jury Rules that Defendant Was Not Negligent: Tollenger v. State of Maryland, et al

December 6, 2012 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

A father’s long legal battle over the 2001 death of his daughter in a car accident may have come to an end in November, when a jury ruled that the state of Maryland was not negligent in its maintenance of the Thomas J. Hatem Memorial Bridge, where the accident occurred. The lawsuit, Tollenger v. State of Maryland, et al, alleged that various state transportation agencies negligently failed to place a dividing barrier on the bridge to separate the four lanes of traffic. The state had successfully argued that the Maryland Tort Claims Act (MTCA) contained an implied exception shielding the state from liability for discretionary planning, but the Maryland Court of Special Appeals reversed that judgment in 2011 and remanded the case for trial. The November verdict was on the sole issue of whether the state was legally responsible for the death of the plaintiff’s daughter and other individuals.

The accident occurred during a rainstorm on August 10, 2001, when 12 year-old Ashley Tollenger was riding in a pickup truck driven by her stepfather, 52 year-old Kenneth Connor. The truck reportedly hit a patch of water on the bridge, which extends over the Susquehanna River, and began to hydroplane. The truck veered across the center line and into oncoming traffic, where a Jeep Cherokee collided with it. Ashley Tollenger was pronounced dead at the scene, and Connor was pronounced dead soon after at a nearby hospital.

Garrett Tollenger, Ashley’s father, filed suit in Harford County Circuit Court against the Maryland Transportation Authority, the State Highway Administration, the Maryland Department of Transportation, and other state defendants in August 2004. The lawsuit alleged that the state knew of potential hazards associated with the absence of a center barrier on the bridge, and that it was negligent in failing to place such a barrier. The plaintiff’s witnesses included other individuals who were injured in accidents on the bridge, and a former Harford County executive who had written to the state requesting construction of a barrier on the bridge.

Death of Maryland Family in Auto Accident Leads to First Lawsuit Based on Fetal Death Statute: Baumann et al v. Slezak et al

November 23, 2012 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

An accident on a Nebraska highway took the lives of a Maryland family. The resulting lawsuit, Baumann v. Slezak, et al, is reportedly the first to invoke that state’s law allowing causes of action for the wrongful death of unborn children. Nebraska’s law, enacted in 2003, differs from Maryland’s wrongful death statute, in that it allows causes of action for prenatal deaths “at any stage of gestation.” Maryland only allows causes of action for the death of viable fetuses.

In the early morning of September 9, 2012, the Schmidt family was stuck in a traffic jam on westbound Interstate 80. The family, which consisted of Christopher and Diana Schmidt and their two children, was driving through western Nebraska on their way from Maryland to California. Diana Schmidt was seven-and-a-half months pregnant with a child they had named Ethan. The couple was driving in separate cars: Diana Schmidt and the two children were in a Toyota Corolla, and Christopher Schmidt was directly behind them in a Ford Mustang. The traffic jam was the result of a deadly collision between two semi-trailers about a mile further up the highway. One semi had become disabled, and although the driver pulled the rig to the side of the road, he allegedly left the trailer blocking traffic. Another semi crashed into the trailer at about 4:30 a.m., killing its driver.

While the Schmidts were stopped at the rear of the long line of traffic, a semi trailer driven by Josef Slezak collided with the back of the Mustang. Slezak was allegedly driving seventy-five miles per hour, and did not make an effort to slow or stop his rig. The collision caused the Mustang to collide with the Corolla, pushing the Corolla under another trailer. All four members of the Schmidt family, as well as their unborn child, died in the collision.

Business Use Exceptions in Auto Liability Policies Under Maryland Law Reviewed by Federal Appellate Court: Forkwar v. Empire Fire and Marine Ins. Co.

November 12, 2012 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

After obtaining a verdict in a car accident lawsuit, the plaintiff sought to enforce the judgment against the defendant’s insurer. The insurance company successfully argued that the “business use” exception barred coverage of the plaintiff’s claim, as the defendant was operating his vehicle in the course of his work at the time of the accident. The court in the original lawsuit had found that the doctrine of respondeat superior, which holds an employer liable for certain acts of an employee, did not apply to the defendant’s employer. The court in the present case, Forkwar v. Empire Fire and Marine Ins. Co., nevertheless found that the business use exception applied. The case highlights an important challenge for Maryland plaintiffs who may obtain a verdict, but might have difficulty enforcing it.

The plaintiff, Augustine Forkwar, was involved in an automobile accident during the early morning of November 26, 2004 with Hameed Mahdi. Mahdi was an independent contractor of J&J Logistics. He owned his vehicle but leased it to J&J. At the time of the accident, he was on his way to a job for J&J when he stopped to get something to eat. Empire Fire & Marine Insurance Company had issued a commercial auto insurance policy to Mahdi, but it asserted that it was not obligated to defend or indemnify Mahdi under the policy’s business use exception.

Forkwar sued Mahdi and J&J in October 2006, alleging negligence against Mahdi and respondeat superior liability against J&J. Forkwar reportedly made no attempt to prove liability against J&J, and she did not oppose its motion for judgment as a matter of law in the middle of trial. The jury entered a judgment against Mahdi, who was a no-show at trial, for over $180,000. Forkwar then filed suit against Empire for indemnification. Empire removed the case to federal court and moved for summary judgment based on the business use exception. The district court granted the motion, and Forward appealed to the Fourth Circuit.

Man Sentenced to More than Two Years in Prison for Fatal Drunk Driving Crash

September 18, 2012 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

After pleading guilty to charges of drunk driving, a Vermont man received a two-and-a-half-year prison sentence in late August. One passenger died in the automobile accident that led to the criminal charges, in which the man was allegedly driving with more than twice the legal blood alcohol level.

The accident occurred at about 1:00 a.m. on October 2, 2011, when a car driven by 23 year-old Derek Seber, a Maryland resident attending Norwich University, ran off a road in Northfield, Vermont and crashed into the trees. Witnesses said they saw a car speed past them at fifty to sixty miles per hour. The posted speed limit at the turn where the crash occurred was thirty-five miles per hour. The car, an Acura 4S sedan, was carrying seven passengers in addition to Seber. A passenger in the front seat, an eighteen year-old Norwich freshman, was sitting in another passenger’s lap with no seatbelt. She sustained fatal injuries in the crash. Three other passengers suffered critical injuries.

Two Wrong-Way Crashes on Maryland Highway Linked to Exit Ramp

August 20, 2012 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Interstate 97 stretches just under eighteen miles between Annapolis and Baltimore. Exit 10B on the northbound side of the highway feeds onto Veterans Highway in Millersville. It is also the point where a driver entered the wrong side of the highway in January 2012, resulting in a head-on collision that killed four people. A second fatal wrong-way collision in the same area caused Maryland safety officials to consider whether the exit ramp poses a danger because it can be mistaken for an on-ramp. While they maintain that driver error caused both crashes, these cases demonstrate the role that road signs and highway markings can play in preventing accidents.

The first accident occurred in the early morning of January 28, 2012. A nineteen year-old driver turned off of Veterans Highway onto what she apparently thought was the ramp to the southbound lanes of I-97, but was actually the exit from the northbound lanes. She drove south for over nine miles before colliding head-first with a vehicle traveling north at about 3:30 a.m. She and the three occupants of the other vehicle died in the crash. Toxicology reports showed that both drivers were intoxicated. The Maryland State Highway Administration (SHA) concluded at the time that alcohol was the principal cause for the driver’s error.

Maryland Appeals Court Rules on Issue Preclusion and Contributory Negligence in Auto Accident Case

July 12, 2012 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

An interesting decision by the Maryland Court of Special Appeals addressed the applicability of an out-of-state jury verdict in a Maryland lawsuit concerning issue preclusion. In Bryan v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., the court found that a New York verdict finding a driver negligent precluded the driver from claiming on his insurance policy in Maryland. The court applied the doctrine of contributory negligence, which is still on the books in only a handful of states, including Maryland.

Brenton Bryan was driving in Freeport, New York on May 29, 2006, with his wife and two children in the car. According to Bryan, a “phantom vehicle” cut him off by changing lanes unexpectedly. This caused Bryan’s car to strike two other vehicles. The driver of one of those cars was Juan Chevez. Chevez and his wife, Ines Chevez, who was a passenger in the vehicle, sued Bryan in Queens County, New York, alleging that he was negligent and therefore responsible for the accident.

A jury trial in December 2010 focused exclusively on the question of Bryan’s liability. The jury found that Bryan operated his vehicle negligently that night, and that this was a “substantial factor in bringing about the accident.” Bryan and the Chevezes subsequently agreed to settle the matter for $30,000 in exchange for a general release.

If a Maryland Employees Gets Into A Distracted Driving Accident, When is the Employer Liable?

June 21, 2012 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

The problem of distracted driving, or driving while also trying to use a cell phone or other mobile device, has gained significant attention in recent years. States and cities have passed laws restricting use of mobile devices in an effort to curb distracted driving and improve safety. Distracted driving continues to play a role in thousands of automobile accidents, some of them fatal.

The federal government reports that distracted driving-related accidents killed at least 3,092 people in 2010. Around 416,000 drivers, passengers, and pedestrians were injured in crashes where at least one driver was not paying complete attention while behind the wheel. In claims for personal injuries in distracted driving accidents, the driver who caused the accident is almost always the main liable party, but in some cases a driver’s employer may also be liable. With greater attention being given to distracted driving, many employers are enacting cell phone policies in an effort to limit their own liability for their employees’ distraction-related accidents.

Employers may be liable for the negligent or unlawful actions of their employees in certain circumstances, according to the legal doctrine of respondeat superior. This doctrine holds an employer liable for accidents that occur while an employee is performing ordinary job duties in the regular course of operating their business. Courts have tended to take an expansive view of what activities are related to an employee’s job duties for the purpose of determining liability under a theory of respondeat superior. doctrine. Generally speaking, courts will apply the doctrine in a situation where an employee might engage in work-related activities, or where an observer might reasonably think the person is involved in work-related activities.