Premises Liability

Construction Worker Injured in Workplace Accident Receives Verdict of over $21 Million

November 10, 2014 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Earlier last month, a Maryland jury awarded a man over $21 million after he was severely injured and permanently paralyzed in a workplace accident at a Pepco plant in Montgomery County. According to a report by the Washington Post, the man was working high up in the air on some scaffolding when he was struck by a transformer. The force of the collision sent the man eight feet into the air.Upon landing, the man snapped his spine, paralyzing him from the neck down. In addition to his paralysis, the man also received burns over 10% of his body because the transformer—which the worker had been told was discharged – was still powered on. The man sued Pepco for negligence.

The trial was not focused around whether Pepco was negligent. In fact, Pepco admitted its negligence. The only trial issue for the jury to determine was the amount of damages that would be appropriate for Pepco to pay out.

Baltimore Boy Awarded Over $2 Million in Lead-Exposure Case

October 8, 2014 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Earlier this month in a Maryland court, a 17-year-old Baltimore boy was awarded over $2 million by a jury after a case involving lead exposure. According to a report by WBALTV, the boy suffered permanent brain damage from lead exposure that occurred while he was living in a Baltimore house between the year of his birth in 1997 and 2001.

According to court documents, the owner of the house had not painted the house in many years, leaving a coat of lead paint exposed on the interior of the home on the 1600 block of East 25th Street in northeast Baltimore. The jury ended up finding the owner of the building as well as the property manager negligent for failing to keep the house up to code.

At trial, the boy’s attorneys submitted evidence that showed the following:

The loss of four to five IQ points, as well as cognitive deficits, attention problems, and learning and behavioral issues;
Last year, the boy had a 1.0 average GPA, was taking bridge classes, and was taking other measures to graduate on time, although it didn’t look likely; and
The boy was tested for lead exposure and had more than double the amount of lead in his blood that qualifies as “lead exposure.”

Philadelphia Woman Sues Ocean City for Negligently Maintained Sidewalks

September 9, 2014 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Earlier this summer, a woman from Philadelphia was visiting Ocean City, Maryland with her family when she fell out of her wheelchair and fractured her arm. According to a report by DelmarvaNow, the woman is claiming that the city was negligent in its maintenance of the sidewalk and that she deserves compensation for her injuries as a result.

Evidently, the woman was visiting the boardwalk with her family around 8:00 in the evening. On their way back to their rental condo, the woman was being pushed by her daughter when the family decided to cross from east to west across Philadelphia Avenue.

As the woman’s daughter was pushing her across the street, the woman’s wheelchair suddenly stopped when it hit a raised piece of a rubber warning mat on the ramp on the other end of the intersection. The jolt caused the woman to fall out of her wheelchair and fracture her arm as a result.

Roller Coaster in Maryland Stalls, Trapping 24 People 75-Feet in the Air for Four Hours

August 27, 2014 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Earlier this month at Six Flags America, a roller coaster stalled in mid-air, trapping those aboard for four hours while emergency crews tried to reach them and bring them to safety. According to a report by US News and World Report, the “Joker Jinx” came to a complete stop just before reaching its highest point. The riders were stuck on the coaster 75 feet in the air.

According to a Six Flags spokesperson, the roller coaster has a sophisticated safety system in place that stops the ride whenever there is any safety concern. Therefore, the ride didn’t technically break down but stalled to prevent an unsafe situation. As far as Six Flags is concerned, there was no breach of safety, and the riders were never in danger. However, it probably didn’t feel that way for the two dozen people on the ride at the time.

Luckily, no one was hurt, even though it was a hot day and the riders were stuck in the sun for hours. Emergency crews were able to climb up the coaster and take down all the riders before anyone suffered any serious adverse condition.

Woman Who Lost Husband and Two Sons When Home Depot Collapsed Sues Under Negligence Theory

August 20, 2014 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Back in 2011, a massive tornado swept through Missouri, ripping apart most buildings and homes in its way. One building that was destroyed was a Home Depot home-improvement store. Tragically, dozens of people were trapped inside as the 100,000-pound walls to the store fell. Eight died. In fact, all but 10 of the 73 walls fell inward as the roof was ripped off the store.

Employees told customers to head towards the store’s training room, where they should remain safe. However, as one woman’s husband and two children made their way to the training room, the walls of the store fell on them, crushing them instantly.

The Missouri woman who lost her family in the storm accident recently filed a claim against Home Depot, the store’s designer, and the property owner, a Maryland-based company. The suit alleges that the building was not up to par back when it was built in 2001 and that, had it been constructed properly, the walls would have fallen to the outside rather than fall in on unsuspecting customers.

Maryland Supreme Court Decision Clarifies Landowner’s Duty in Accidental Drowning Case

July 1, 2014 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

In 2010, a young three-year old boy died when he climbed through a gate and into a swimming pool in his parents’ apartment complex. The family of the boy filed charges against the apartment complex, among others, alleging that they were negligent because they breached “a duty to maintain the Country Place pool in a reasonably safe condition for all residents of Country Place Apartments, and particularly children of all ages.”

At trial, the defendants claimed that they didn’t owe the boy any duty of care (and thus could not be held liable for the accident) because the boy was trespassing when he entered the closed pool. However, the boy’s family pointed to a Maryland law that required all pools be properly fenced in and argued that the defendants were negligent per se for their failure to comply with that law.

At trial, the court died with the defendants, finding that the law creating a duty only came into play once it was established that the person in question was not a trespasser. However, on appeal to the intermediate court, the decision was reversed. That court held that the statutory duty arose regardless of the injured person’s status.

Weather Report Used By Appellate Judge in Premises Liability Case

May 7, 2014 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

In an interesting case out of New York State, an appellate judge reversed a lower court ruling that found against a slip-and-fall accident victim. The case was brought by Mr. Palazzo after he slipped and fell on some ice outside the defendant’s residence.

According to court documents, Mr. Palazzo was walking down the sidewalk outside the defendant’s residence at approximately 11:15 a.m. on December 15th when he slipped and fell. He testified that he noticed that the sidewalk was went and icy in some parts, but he didn’t notice any specific patches of ice. After he fell, he sued the property owner to cover his medical bills and his pain and suffering.

At Trial

The judge presiding over the trial made note of the fact that Mr. Palazzo didn’t see any specific patch of ice. The judge also looked at weather reports on the day of the accident that indicated that there was warm temperatures in the morning of the accident, and that it was unlikely that there was actually any snow or ice on the sidewalk. The most recent storm was on December 10th, when it snowed five inches.

Maryland Legislature Overturns Court Ruling Regarding Pit Bulls, Applies Same Standard of Liability to All Dog Owners Regardless of Breed

April 14, 2014 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley signed a bill into law that overturns a controversial 2012 Maryland Court of Appeals decision regarding pit bull-type dogs. In Tracey v. Solesky, 50 A.3d 1075 (Md. App. 2012), the court modified the standard of negligence applied to attacks by pit bulls against humans, applying strict liability to dog owners and landlords who allow the dogs on premises they own or control. The decision met with substantial criticism from animal welfare advocates, landlords and other property owners, and many others. In addition to causing multiple evictions and surrenders of dogs to animal shelters, the decision may have made it more difficult for people to assert claims for damages by dogs that were not pit bulls. The new law applies the same standard of liability to all dog owners, regardless of the dog’s breed.

The Solesky case involved injuries to a young boy by a dog named Clifford. The boy required five hours of surgery and spent seventeen days in the hospital. His family sued the dog’s owner and the landlord, claiming that the landlord knew or had reason to know of the dog’s dangerous tendencies. The landlord presented several questions to the Court of Appeals, including whether harboring American Staffordshire Terriers, or “pit bulls,” is an “inherently dangerous activity” that would support the common law strict liability standard for a landlord. Id. at 1078.

The court ruled that “pit bulls” are “aggressive and vicious” by nature and expressly modified the common law negligence rule to hold landlords strictly liable for injuries caused by such dogs. Id. at 1079-80. A strict liability standard would apply if the plaintiff could prove that the landlord knew of the presence of a pit bull or cross-breed pit bull. A dissenting opinion by Judge Clayton Greene, Jr. noted the lack of expert opinion regarding pit bull temperament. It also noted the lack of a clear definition of “pit bull,” and the opinion of many experts that the term is “a generic category encompassing the American Staffordshire Bull Terrier, the Staffordshire Bull Terrier, and the American Pit Bull Terrier.” Id. at 1096. See also Weigel v. Maryland, 950 F.Supp.2d 811, 822 (D. Md. 2013).

Family of Man with Down Syndrome Killed in Altercation with Off-Duty Police Files Amended Complaint in Wrongful Death, Survival Lawsuit

March 19, 2014 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

The family of a man who was killed in an altercation with off-duty sheriff’s deputies at a Maryland movie theater have filed an amended complaint in their wrongful death and survival lawsuit. Estate of Saylor, et al, v. Regal Cinemas, Inc., et al, No. 1:13-cv-03089, am. complaint (D. Md., Mar. 11, 2014). Several defendants moved to dismiss the lawsuit late last year, claiming that the lawsuit failed to state a claim on which the court could grant relief against them. The plaintiffs sought and received leave from the court to amend their complaint, dropping two defendants and adding the State of Maryland in March 2014.

The decedent, Robert Ethan Saylor, was twenty-six years old at the time of his death on January 12, 2013. He had Down Syndrome, with an I.Q. of 40 and physical features commonly associated with the condition. According to the amended complaint, he was about five-feet-six-inches tall and weighed 294 pounds. He went to a movie theater in Frederick on the evening of January 12 with an aide. After the movie, Saylor reportedly became angry when the aide asked if he wanted to go home. The aide called Saylor’s mother, who suggested she go get the car. She left Saylor outside the theater to get the car, which was permitted under his care plan, and when she returned found that he had gone back inside.

A manager approached the aide, and she explained Saylor’s condition, explained that he would “freak out” if touched, id. at 6, and recommended that no one speak to him. The manager then asked an off-duty sheriff’s deputy working as a security guard to remove Saylor. The guard called in two additional security guards, also off-duty deputies, to assist. When they attempted to physically remove Saylor, he resisted, and the guards used force against him. Saylor suffered a fractured larynx, and was pronounced dead at the hospital just before midnight. The medical examiner ruled it a homicide. The plaintiffs describe it as a “violent, terrifying, and painful death.” Id. at 7.

Hospital Technicians’ Lawsuits Allege Injuries from Radiation Exposure

February 14, 2014 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

A series of lawsuits brought by hospital technicians accuses the hospital where they worked of failing to maintain adequate shielding around its CT scan machine. The plaintiffs, in five individual lawsuits, allege that radiation exposure caused a variety of injuries and will require them to undergo cancer screenings for the rest of their lives. Two of the plaintiffs operated the CT scanner while pregnant and have brought claims on behalf of their children. The lawsuit names the company that operates the hospital, along with the engineering and architecture firms that built the addition housing the CT scanner, as defendants.

A computed tomography (CT) scanning machine rotates around a patient, using x-ray beams to create a cross-section image of the patient’s body. The process typically takes only a few minutes, so a patient’s exposure to dangerous radiation is minimal. Technicians who operate the scanners, however, could face prolonged exposure and associated health risks. Lead shielding in the walls surrounding a scanner is a standard method of protecting technicians from radiation. The technicians set up the scanner with the patient, then leave the room while the scanner is in operation.

Methodist Medical Center, located in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, opened a new emergency department building in 2006. This building included a facility for CT scanning. The plaintiffs claim that the room housing the CT scanner did not have sufficient lead shielding, resulting in dangerous levels of exposure to radiation over a seven-year period. All five plaintiffs claim that they are suffering from health problems related to radiation exposure, including thyroid problems, sleep issues, and headaches. They allege that they all face a significantly higher risk of cancer, and require regular cancer screening. Two of the plaintiffs worked while pregnant, and both have asserted claims for their children’s injuries. One of the children allegedly suffers from severe radiation-related health problems.