Personal Injury

Gwyneth Paltrow Ski Accident Verdict Sheds a Light on Liability for Recreational Accidents

April 28, 2023 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Americans love to have fun. The recreational industry in the country is a multi-billion dollar business, and many Marylanders enjoy participating in recreational activities for their amusement. Boating, four-wheeling, skiing, rock climbing, and other recreational sports and hobbies generally have inherent risks associated with them, which can result in participants suffering serious injury or death in the event of an accident. Activities that involve multiple people of various skill levels recreating in the same space can be a recipe for accidents and injuries. The recently popularized negligence trial involving actress Gwenwth Paltrow and a man she allegedly crashed into while skiing at a Utah ski resort has brought attention to the liability for accidents occurring at shared recreation areas.

The case against Ms. Paltrow was relatively simple. The plaintiff sued the actress after allegedly suffering injuries in a skiing accident. The main dispute in the trial was over which of the skiers was at fault for the crash. When skiing, the person farther down the hill generally has the right of way, and another person who causes an accident by failing to yield that right of way could be held accountable for any injuries suffered by the other skier. The jury in the Gweneth Paltrow trial found that the plaintiff could not prove, by the preponderance of the evidence, that the actress failed to respect the plaintiff’s right of way. As a result of the verdict, Ms. Paltrow will not be responsible for any of the other skier’s injuries.

Who Is Liable in a Skiing Accident?

When recreation is enjoyed in a public or private place, there may be other parties who can be held accountable for an accident. A private business, such as a ski resort, race track, or marina does have a duty to ensure that their customers are not placed in unreasonable danger by the actions of the owner. Businesses often attempt to reduce their liability by requiring their customers to sign an express waiver of liability, or implicitly assume the risks of that activity by agreeing to participate. Although these waivers reduce the liability of the business, they are not absolute. Businesses still have the responsibility to adequately train their staff and prevent acts of gross negligence by their employees. If employees act outside the scope of their job description, they may be held accountable in their individual capacity.

Damages in a Maryland Personal Injury Lawsuit

July 31, 2022 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Accidents often occur in a moment’s notice; however, the impact they have on a victim can last a lifetime. Even seemingly minor accidents can result in an accident victim incurring tremendous hospital bills, missing days or weeks of work, and experiencing lingering pain or other physical limitations. Through a personal injury lawsuit, Maryland accident victims can recover monetary compensation to cover these expenses.

When Can You Bring a Maryland Personal Injury Lawsuit?

Personal injury claims are based on the legal theory of negligence. Thus, to prove a claim, an accident victim must be able to establish each of the following four elements:

Contributory Negligence in Maryland Car Accidents

July 10, 2022 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Riding a motorcycle is between 15 to 40 times more dangerous than driving a car, and each year dozens of motorcyclists are killed and thousands more are injured in Maryland car accidents. Motorcyclists should exercise extreme caution when out on the road, carefully obeying all traffic signs and laws. While motorcyclists might be tempted to shirk certain rules of the road, doing so could have a significant impact on a victim’s recovery in the event of an accident.

Given the elevated risk of being involved in a Maryland car accident, motorcyclists should be aware that in Maryland, contributory negligence in a car accident can dramatically impact a victim’s recovery. Although it might seem to contradict general wisdom regarding fault in an accident, even minor negligence by the victim can be used effectively by defense attorneys to counter plaintiff claims. A recent local news article discussed a fatal collision between a speeding police car and a motor scooter that occurred in June 2022 in Maryland.

According to the news article, the accident occurred when a 58-year-old Maryland man was riding a motor scooter through an intersection. The police car drove through a red light at the intersection as it was responding to a service call with lights and sirens activated, crashing into the motor scooter at high speed, ejecting the victim from the motor scooter. Officers provided aid to the victim until EMS arrived at the scene of the accident before he was taken to an area hospital with serious injuries. Ultimately, the victim’s injuries were too severe to be successfully treated and he succumbed to his injuries from the crash. The article states that the officer driving the police car suffered minor injuries, and does not mention that any charges have been filed against the officer.

Plaintiff’s Slip-and-Fall Case Dismissed Due to Lack of Causation Evidence

February 22, 2017 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

In a recent case before a state appellate court, a plaintiff’s premises liability claim against a fast-food restaurant manager was dismissed based on the plaintiff’s failure to present sufficient evidence that the manager’s negligence resulted in her injuries. In rejecting the plaintiff’s claims, the court explained that a plaintiff must present evidence more than “mere speculation” as to how her injury occurred.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff slipped and fell as she was entering a fast-food restaurant managed by the defendant. According to the court’s recitation of the facts, the restaurant’s entrance consists of a set of double doors. On her way into the restaurant, the plaintiff made it through the first set of doors without a problem, but she was unable to open the second set of doors. She testified that she was shaking the door, trying to get it to open, when she fell.

After her fall, she noticed that the ground around her was damp and that a rug in the foyer area where she fell was wet. However, when asked, she could not remember exactly what happened in the moments before her fall. Specifically, she stated that “it just happened so fast . . . I just remember pushing on the door, and the next thing I remember is just sitting there.”

Court Discusses Parties’ Respective Burdens in Premises Liability Summary Judgment Motion

December 22, 2016 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Earlier this month, an appellate court issued a written opinion in a premises liability case brought by a woman whom had slipped and fallen on some icy steps outside a restaurant. In the case, Lowrey v. LMPS & LMPJ, the court took the opportunity to clarify each party’s burden when a defendant seeks summary judgment in a premises liability case. Ultimately, finding that the plaintiff presented insufficient evidence of her claim, the court determined that the defendant was entitled to summary judgment.

The Facts of the Case

Lowrey was leaving Woody’s Diner, an establishment owned and operated by the defendant, when she slipped and fell on a set of icy stairs. Lowrey filed a premises liability case against the owners of the restaurant, claiming that they knew or should have known about the icy steps but failed to do anything to remedy the danger or warn patrons of the slippery condition.

Before trial, the defendant asked the court to dismiss the case against it, arguing that Lowrey did not provide any evidence suggesting that the defendant knew the dangerous condition existed. The trial judge agreed and dismissed the case.

Court Allows Civil Claim for Injuries Sustained During DWI Arrest to Proceed

December 1, 2016 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

The burden of proof is on the state to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in driving while intoxicated (DWI) cases. A defendant can challenge evidence based on the police’s conduct at the time of the arrest. If a traffic stop or search violated a defendant’s constitutional rights, the court may suppress any evidence obtained as a result. In some cases, however, a civil rights violation by an officer might not directly affect the outcome of a DWI case. Instead, a defendant must seek recourse through a civil claim. This is very different from DWI defense, but it is important to understand in cases in which, for example, police intentionally or recklessly cause an injury to a defendant. A New Jersey court recently ruled in favor of a DWI defendant’s claim for this type of alleged injury in Landa v. Twp. of Plainsboro.

Drunk Driving Laws

Although this case took place in New Jersey, DUI is not technically considered a criminal offense there, or under Maryland law, but the procedures involved are very similar to those used in Maryland criminal courts. Prosecutors initiate a case by filing charges against a defendant. They have the burden of proving guilt. The defense’s job, in large part, is to identify defects in the state’s case. A defendant may move to suppress evidence, or even to dismiss a case, prior to trial. If the defendant does not enter a plea, the case goes to trial, where the prosecution must present its case.

A civil claim for injuries takes place in the civil court system. The plaintiff has the burden of proving that the defendant is liable for whatever harm or injury they are claiming. The burden of proof is a preponderance of evidence, which is significantly less stringent than the state’s burden in a DWI case. It essentially means that the plaintiff must prove at least a 51 percent probability that the defendant is responsible.

Court Holds Unemployed Plaintiff Is Eligible for Future Earnings Damages Award

October 12, 2016 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Earlier this month, one state’s supreme court issued a written opinion discussing the availability of damages for a student-plaintiff who was not employed at the time of the accident but expected to obtain employment after graduation. In the case, Fecke v. Board of Supervisors of Louisiana State University, the court ultimately determined that the plaintiff was eligible to receive damages based on a decrease in her future earnings, although she was not employed at the time of the accident.

The Facts of the Case

Fecke was a college student at Louisiana State University. As a part of one of her courses, Fecke was required to complete an indoor rock climbing assignment at the school’s gym. Fecke scaled the wall without a problem, but on the way down, she fell, fracturing her ankle. She blamed the fall on an employee of the facility. As a result of the fall, she required several surgeries, eventually requiring her ankle to be fused.

Fecke and her family filed a lawsuit against the school. After a jury trial, Fecke was found to be 25% at fault and the University 75% at fault. Fecke and her family were awarded just under $2 million, part of which was an award for loss of future earnings. On appeal, the University appealed several issues, one of which was whether an unemployed college student is eligible for damages based on loss of future earnings.

Car Manufacturer Victorious on Appeal of Alleged Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability

September 26, 2016 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Earlier this month, an appellate court in Virginia issued a written opinion in a product liability case that ended up reversing a jury’s verdict in favor of the plaintiff. In the case, Holiday Motor Corp. v. Walters, the court set aside the jury’s verdict because the car manufacturer did not have a duty to customers to manufacture a soft-top convertible that could safely withstand a rollover crash.

The Facts of the Case

Walters was the owner of a 1995 Mazda Miata soft-top convertible. Back in 2006, Walters was driving the Miata on a two-lane road with the soft-top in the closed position when she saw a large object fall off the back of a pick-up truck. To avoid colliding with the large object, she veered to the left across the opposite lane of traffic and up a grassy embankment on the side of the road. As the vehicle left the road, it rolled over and ended up leaning against a tree.

A passerby stopped to offer assistance. He testified at trial that the windshield was flat against the ground, but the rear end of the car was slightly elevated. Walters ended up suffering a serious cervical spine injury and sued Mazda based on a product liability theory. Specifically, Walter argued that Mazda violated the implied warranty of merchantability in that the design of the vehicle’s soft-top was unreasonably dangerous in failing to protect against rollover crashes.

Court Finds Post-Mortem Misconduct Falls under Medical Malpractice Umbrella and Must Comply with Applicable Procedural Requirements

June 1, 2016 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Earlier this month, the Texas Supreme Court issued a written opinion broadly interpreting what constitutes a medical malpractice claim, holding that a hospital’s alleged fraud in obtaining consent to perform a private autopsy was subject to the additional procedural requirements of a medical malpractice action. In the case, Christus Health Gulf Coast v. Carswell, the court dismissed the plaintiffs’ claim because it was filed after the applicable two-year statute of limitations for medical malpractice lawsuits.

The Facts of the Case

The Carswells alleged that the defendant nursing home was negligent in the care it provided to their loved one, which ultimately led to his untimely death in 2004. These claims were filed about a year after the death of their loved one, in compliance with the state’s medical malpractice statute.

In addition, the family claimed that the nursing facility fraudulently obtained the family’s consent to conduct a private autopsy so that the facility could determine their loved one’s cause of death. However, these claims were only raised in the family’s third amended complaint, which was filed nearly three years after the death of their loved one.

Personal Injury Cases Based on Environmental Contamination

April 1, 2016 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

When a company operates a factory or other operation for a long period of time in the same area, unanticipated consequences can arise from the pollutants expelled from the operation. However, under state and federal laws, companies that operate factories or other facilities in an area have a duty to the residents living in the vicinity to keep harmful environmental toxins out of the water, soil, and air supplies. When people are harmed due to a company’s activity in their area, they may be entitled to monetary compensation for the harms they have suffered. These cases are often referred to as “toxic tort” cases.

Establishing liability in a toxic tort case requires the plaintiff to establish a number of factors. Often, one of the more contested factors is causation, which addresses whether the defendant’s actions in polluting the area were the cause of the plaintiff’s injuries. This often requires the testimony of scientific and medical experts.

Recent Case Against Shell Reversed on Appeal in Favor of Plaintiffs

In a recent case in front of a New Mexico appellate court, the court determined that the plaintiffs’ causation evidence that was excluded at trial should not have been excluded, and it reversed the lower court’s decision. As a result, the plaintiff will be given the opportunity to proceed with their case.