Personal Injury

Maryland Judge Refuses to Dismiss Suit Alleging College Ignored Warning Signs in Dangerous Student

July 22, 2013 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

A Baltimore judge recently refused to toss out a lawsuit against Morgan State University surrounding a violent attack by a student against a visitor.

The school urged the judge to dismiss the lawsuit, claiming that the beating was not foreseeable given the student’s behavior, and noted that the student didn’t have a history of documented violence.

The attorney for the victim, however, stated that the perpetrator engaged in a variety of bizarre behaviors over a six month period leading up to the beating, and that those instances should have put the school on notice that the young man was violent.

Specific examples of violent behavior include when the student reportedly punched holes in the wall of a campus computer lab, which ultimately led to his dismissal from the ROTC program. Following the incident, an instructor told campus police that the student was “a “Virginia Tech waiting to happen.” He also made cryptic comments regarding a “blood sacrifice,” and allegedly wrote strange posts on various social media accounts. The judge acknowledged that the school should not be responsible for policing social media sites, but that the pattern of behavior suggested that the student was a potential risk.

Police Trainee Shot in Head Files Negligence Lawsuit Against Baltimore & City Police Department

June 14, 2013 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Several news outlets have reported that a man who was shot in the head during the course of a police training exercise in Maryland earlier this year has filed a multi-million dollar lawsuit against Baltimore and the Baltimore Police Department.

The victim was working as a campus police trainee for the University of Maryland, Baltimore. He was injured when another officer reportedly used a “live” weapon to scare him away from a window during the course of training. Due to the officer’s alleged intentional or negligent conduct in firing the weapon in the man’s direction, he was critically injured. He has since lost an eye, and has been undergoing rehabilitation.

The lawsuit, which accuses the city of selecting a dangerous training site, and negligence in failing to ensure safety procedures were followed, names as defendants the individual officers involved, the City, and the Police Department, and seeks millions of dollars in damages.

The plaintiff’s attorney stated that, “His motor skills, his memory and all of those things are affected, and he will be impaired and have to receive medical attention for the rest of his life,”

Additionally disconcerting is the fact that according to the plaintiff’s attorneys, a similar style of training was conducted with live weapons just a few weeks ago. Luckily no one was hurt during that incident.

Maryland Man Killed in ATV Accident

March 5, 2013 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

A 29-year-old Maryland man was tragically killed last week when he was ejected suddenly from the all-terrain vehicle he was riding and hit a concrete barrier

It happened last Wednesday evening, on West Road in Salisbury. According to police, the man was operating a 2004 Suzuki Quad runner four-wheel drive quad on the roadway at a high rate of speed when he suddenly lost control. The ATV apparently steered off of the road, traveling across uneven pavement, which caused both the man and the ATV to hit a concrete barrier.

Authorities say the man, who was not wearing a helmet or any other safety equipment, died at a local hospital of his injuries. Alcohol was not involved in the accident.

Mother of Man Allegedly Killed by Store Employee Sues for Battery

January 25, 2013 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

A Chicago pharmacy is liable for the alleged acts of its employee that resulted in a man’s death, according to a lawsuit filed by the victim’s mother. The employee allegedly choked the man to death after chasing him outside the store, suspecting him of shoplifting. Police did not prosecute the matter at the time, but new evidence has led to calls to reopen a criminal investigation and renewed interest in the civil lawsuit.

On May 8, 2010, 35 year-old Anthony Kyser allegedly tried to shoplift a tube of toothpaste and some crayons from a CVS Pharmacy in Chicago’s Little Village neighborhood. According to footage from a surveillance camera recently leaked to the media, a store manager, Pedro Villanova, chased Kyser out of the store and caught him in the alley. The video appears to show Villanova knock Kyser to the ground and remain on top of him. Three other individuals also hold Kyser down, until eventually he stops moving. The video shows police arriving several minutes later, followed by an ambulance. The emergency responders could not revive Kyser, and he was pronounced dead.

The official cause of death, as determined by the Cook County Medical Examiner’s Office, was homicide. The police, however, declared that the death was an accident and did not make any arrests or file any charges. A spokesperson for the Chicago Police Department stated that detectives reviewed the surveillance footage in 2010 and “determined that criminal charges were not warranted.”

Supreme Court Reviews Class Action Reform Law

January 21, 2013 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Class action lawsuits have long provided a means for large numbers of claimants to consolidate their claims into a single action, when they might not have the resources to pursue individual lawsuits. This has allowed countless people to seek compensation in cases involving products liability, bad faith insurance practices, and other types of personal injury. Class actions are also common in areas like consumer protection law and certain types of securities litigation. For a variety of reasons, class action lawsuits have also been the subject of much controversy, and legislation supported by businesses, many of whom often appear as defendants in class action cases, has placed limits on the amount class action plaintiffs may recover. The U.S. Supreme Court recently heard arguments in a case, The Standard Fire Insurance Co. v. Knowles, No. 11-1450, that involves a federal statute regulating large state and federal class action lawsuits.

Congress passed the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA) in response to an alleged pattern among trial lawyers of filing class action lawsuits in specific state courts where they could obtain favorable verdicts. Calling this an “abuse” of the class action system, the Republican-led Congress passed the bill by a wide margin, and President Bush signed it into law in February 2005. CAFA applies to class action lawsuits that seek damages in excess of $5 million, and in which more than two-thirds of the plaintiffs are from a different state than the principal defendant. CAFA requires the automatic removal of lawsuits meeting these criteria to federal court, which supporters of the law believed would be less predisposed towards the plaintiffs. CAFA’s opponents called the law an assault on individuals’ legal rights.

Res Ipsa Loquitur Argument Rejected in Maryland Bus Accident Lawsuit: District of Columbia v. Singleton

October 17, 2012 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

A man and his son sued the District of Columbia for injuries sustained in a bus accident in Prince George’s County, Maryland. The lawsuit asserted vicarious liability against the District for the alleged negligence of its employee, the bus driver. The Court of Appeals of Maryland affirmed the trial court’s judgment for the defendant in District of Columbia v. Singleton, 41 A.3d 717 (Md. 2012), finding that the plaintiffs did not produce sufficient evidence to support a theory of res ipsa loquitur.

The accident occurred on June 20, 2008, when Wayne Singleton and his two sons, ages six and eight, were passengers on a bus for a day trip to the Six Flags amusement park, sponsored by the District’s Department of Parks and Recreation. On the return trip to DC, the bus apparently went off the road and crashed into a tree. Singleton and his eight year-old son, Jaron, sustained injuries in the crash. Singleton was asleep when the bus went off the road, allegedly waking up while it was “airborne,” and Jaron had no memory of the accident. Both suffered minor injuries.

Singleton filed suit against the District in January 2009 on his own behalf and on behalf of Jaron. Because neither plaintiff had personal knowledge of the circumstances of the accident, they relied on the theory of res ipsa loquitur. This translates literally as “the thing speaks for itself.”

Children Risk Serious Injury from Recreational Trampoline Use, Pediatricians Say

October 8, 2012 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Recreational trampolines, particularly the kind found in backyards, pose a serious risk of injury to children, according to a paper published by the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) this month. The AAP has long advocated against the recreational use of trampolines, citing the high risk of fractures, spinal cord injuries, and traumatic brain injuries. Other medical associations and the federal government have also noted the hazards of trampolines.

Trampoline use in the home environment remains a popular activity for children and teenagers, despite repeated warnings from the AAP and other groups. The Council on Sports Medicine and Fitness, part of the AAP, reported on the risks of trampoline use in the October issue of the AAP’s official journal, Pediatrics. It estimates that around 100,000 trampoline-related injuries occur every year, and that in every year since 2005, they have been responsible for three to four thousand hospitalizations and deaths. This actually represents a decrease in the annual injury rate, which reportedly peaked at the same time as trampoline sales in 2004. The American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) has also noted a direct correlation between the popularity of recreational trampolines and injury rates.

The original purpose of the modern trampoline was athletic training, not recreation, according to the patent obtained in 1945 by competitive gymnast George Nissen. His patent was for a “tumbling device” he intended to use to train gymnasts and acrobats. It later found a use in military aviation training. Recreational trampolines appeared once manufacturers were able to create frames that consumers could assemble at home. The AAP, the AAOS, and the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) all warn of the dangers inherent in trampoline use. Manufacturers have added safety features in recent years, including padding for trampoline frames and nets to prevent users from falling off the sides, but the AAP reports that these measures have not shown any significant impact on the injury rate.

Maryland Supreme Court Reconsiders Contributory Negligence Doctrine

September 23, 2012 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

An injury caused by a collapsed soccer goal has led the Maryland Supreme Court to reconsider the state’s longstanding doctrine of contributory negligence. Four states and the District of Columbia still follow this doctrine, which holds that plaintiffs may not recover damages in a lawsuit if their own negligence contributed to the accident or loss in any way, no matter how minimal. In Coleman v. Soccer Assoc. of Columbia, et al (Md., Sept. Term 2012, No. 9), the state Supreme Court is considering whether it should follow most U.S. states in adopting the doctrine of comparative negligence. This legal doctrine allows a plaintiff to recover, but reduces damages based on an apportionment of the plaintiff’s negligence.

Kyle Coleman, twenty years-old at the time, was attending a soccer practice at Lime-Kiln Middle School in Fulton, Maryland in 2008. As he went to retrieve a ball from the goal, he grabbed the crossbar. This apparently caused the crossbar to collapse, hitting Coleman in the face and crushing several ocular bones. He now has three titanium plates in his skull.

Coleman sued the Soccer Association of Columbia, which was responsible for the practice where his injury occurred. He alleged that it breached its duty to maintain the goal properly. A jury found that the association was negligent in failing to secure the goal, but it also found that Coleman was partly negligent. The contributory negligence doctrine therefore barred him from relief.

Woman Sues Police Department and Town Over Shooting of Armed Assailant

July 19, 2012 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

A standoff involving a suspected criminal, his hostage, and a police officer in March 2012 ended with the suspect dead, the hostage rescued, and the officer hailed as a hero. In an unusual twist, the woman who was held hostage that evening has indicated that she plans to sue the New Jersey township where the incident occurred. In a tort claim notice filed in June, she stated that she intends to claim negligence and various breaches of duty against both the township and the police officer involved in the shooting, and to seek monetary damages for injuries she allegedly sustained as a result. Because the township is a government entity, she is legally required to submit a notice of claim to the township before she may file a lawsuit.

During the early evening of Thursday, March 8, 2012, mall security guards and an off-duty police officer working security approached 44 year-old Andres Garcia in the Woodbridge Center shopping mall in Woodbridge, New Jersey. They suspected Garcia of shoplifting. Garcia was also wanted for violating his parole on a robbery conviction. He reportedly fled from the security guards through the mall. At the entrance of the Sears store, Garcia grabbed 62 year-old Ellen Shane, who was shopping with her husband, Ronald Shane. Holding a knife to her throat, Garcia dragged Shane into the store while her husband tried to hold onto her. According to the county prosecutor, the police officer, Edward Barrett, Jr., warned Garcia several times to drop the knife. Garcia reportedly told Barrett he would hurt Shane if Barrett did not allow him to leave. Barrett fired a single shot that struck Garcia in the head. Garcia was pronounced dead at 5:32 p.m. at the scene, with the gunshot later ruled as the cause of death.

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.