Slip and Fall

Personal Injury Plaintiff’s Case against Government Dismissed for Failure to Comply with Tort Claims Act Requirements

April 22, 2016 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Earlier this month, an appellate court in Maine issued a written opinion in a case filed by a man against a local government, alleging negligence for failing to maintain a safe property near the city hall. In the case, Deschenes v. City of Sanford, the court ultimately dismissed the case because the plaintiff failed to comply with the state’s Tort Claims Act. Specifically, the plaintiff failed to provide written notice to the city within 180 days of his injury.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff, Deschenes, was injured when he slipped and fell down the steps at the city hall after he went to obtain a copy of his daughter’s birth certificate. According to Deschenes, he tripped on a piece of tread that was uneven, fell to the bottom of the stairs, and then slid into some nearby glass doors.

After his injury, he contacted the nearest city employee, who provided some basic first-aid until emergency medical responders arrived. Once they arrived, Deschenes was transported to the hospital. It was determined that he has suffered some “abrasions.”

Premises Liability Cases and the “Recreational Use” Exception

April 8, 2016 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Whenever a landowner invites others onto their land, the landowner assumes a duty of care to that person. Most commonly, this duty requires that the landowner take reasonable precautions to ensure that there are no dangerous conditions on their property that could result in injury to their guest. However, as is the case with most laws, there are exceptions when a landowner may be absolved from responsibility when someone injures themselves on the landowner’s property.

The Recreational Use Statute in Maryland

Maryland, like many other states, wants to encourage landowners to open their land for the general public to use and enjoy. In order to encourage this, the law grants landowners immunity from some lawsuits that may arise when someone comes onto their land and hurts themselves.

Generally speaking, the land must be open for free use by any member of the general public in order for the recreational use statute to apply. If it does not apply, the landowner may be held liable for injuries that occur on his or her land, even if the landowner was not aware of the condition himself.

Court Holds Hospital Slip-and-Fall Accident Does Not Trigger Medical Malpractice Requirements

January 4, 2016 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Earlier last month, one state supreme court handed down an opinion distinguishing accidents that occur at a hospital but do not involve a breach of a professional medical duty from actions brought under a theory of medical malpractice. In the case, Galvan v. Memorial Hermann Hospital System, the plaintiff was a woman who was injured when she slipped and fell while visiting a loved one in the defendant’s hospital.

According to the court’s written opinion, the plaintiff was walking from the hospital’s pharmacy to her loved one’s room when she slipped and fell after stepping in a puddle of water that had formed outside the door to a restroom. The plaintiff filed suit against the hospital under a premises liability theory.

The Pre-Trial Motion for Summary Judgment

The hospital claimed that, since the injury occurred at a hospital, the heightened requirements of a medical malpractice lawsuit applied. Specifically, the plaintiff in this case did not submit an expert’s affidavit supporting her position. Thus, in a pre-trial motion, the hospital asked the court to dismiss the lawsuit because the plaintiff failed to comply with a necessary procedural requirement that applies to all medical malpractice lawsuits.

Federal Appellate Court Reverses Lower Court’s Evidentiary Ruling, Allowing Plaintiff’s Expert Witness’ Testimony

August 10, 2015 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Earlier this month, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals decided a case that deals with an evidentiary issue common in many personal injury lawsuits: the admissibility of expert testimony. In the case of Sorrels v. NCL (Bahamas), the plaintiff was a customer on one of NCL’s cruise ships. At some point during the cruise, the plaintiff slipped and fell on the deck of the ship and fractured her wrist. At the time, the deck was wet from a recent rainfall. She filed suit against the cruise line, alleging its negligence in maintaining the ship’s deck.

The Issues at Trial

In this slip-and-fall case, one of the critical issues was what the ship deck’s coefficient of friction (COF) was. COF is a scientific term experts use to describe how much force is necessary to move one surface over another. In this case, the relevant surface was the ship’s deck; the higher the COF, the less slippery the surface will be.

The plaintiff called an expert at trial to testify to the ship deck’s COF. The expert tested the ship’s deck, although it was 520 days after the slip-and-fall accident. The expert also was going to testify to what he believed that the “normal” COF for a ship deck on a commercial cruise line should be. Specifically, the expert had four conclusions:

Maryland Worker Electrocuted While at Work at Correctional Facility

May 25, 2015 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Earlier this month in Westover, Maryland, a contractor who was working on an upgrade to the electrical system at Eastern Correctional Institution was killed when he was electrocuted in a tragic workplace accident. According to one local news report, the man was working with another sub-contractor as a part of GE Industrial Solutions when the accident occurred.

Evidently, the second-largest prison in Maryland required an upgrade to the electrical control system. However, during the upgrade, something went wrong and both sub-contractors were electrocuted. One man was shocked so badly that he died almost immediately. The other man involved received timely medical treatment and is expected to recover.

The exact cause of the accident is still under investigation by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. A report is expected to be released shortly.

Former Professional Wrestlers Sue League over Brain Damage

February 9, 2015 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Several former professional wrestlers in the World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE) league have sued the league over allegations that the league was negligent in protecting the safety of wrestlers during televised matches. According to one national news source, the allegations stem from the league’s negligence in its policies regarding permitted wrestling moves that—while they drew the audience’s attention—put the wrestlers at great risk for serious head injury.

Evidently, the wrestlers claimed in the lawsuit that they have suffered severe neurological damage due to the repeated head injuries they sustained while wrestling for the WWE. Specifically, they are claiming that they suffer from headaches, memory loss, depression, hearing impairment, tremors, convulsions, and migraines.

The kinds of injuries sustained in wrestling are not unlike those sustained in other high-impact sports, such as football and boxing. And, like wrestling, leagues in those sports are also under legal scrutiny for their policies regarding concussions and head injuries. In fact, the NFL is currently in a prolonged lawsuit with approximately 5,000 former players who claim that they sustained serious and irreversible damage while playing for the NFL.

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.

Maryland High Court Upholds Transit Authority’s Immunity From Slip-and-Fall Lawsuit – Tinsley v. WMATA

December 20, 2012 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

In a recent decision, the Maryland Court of Appeals (the state’s highest court) held that the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) was immune from a lawsuit resulting from a slip-and-fall accident in a WMATA station. The court’s decision was based largely on the principle of sovereign immunity, which protects the state government and its departments and agencies from lawsuits for monetary damages by citizens, except in certain circumstances.

In this case, Tinsley v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, the plaintiff Veronica Tinsley was at the Cheverly Metro Station in Maryland when she slipped and fell on the wet platform. She alleged that she was exercising due care for her safety but slipped because the platform was wet from cleaning. The plaintiff argued that WMATA was responsible for maintenance of the platform but failed to post adequate signs or warnings about the wet platform after cleaning it.

In its defense, the WMATA argued that Section 80 of the WMATA Compact shields it from liability for money damages. The Compact is an interstate agreement among Maryland, Virginia, and the District of Columbia that establishes the WMATA as an interstate entity responsible for mass transit in the area. The court found that because the Compact was signed by states who are entitled to sovereign immunity, the entity the Compact created was likewise entitled to immunity. While Section 80 waives immunity for certain lawsuits (those arising from proprietary functions), it does not waive immunity for lawsuits arising from governmental functions. Finding that the maintenance of platforms was a governmental function, the court held that the WMATA Compact did not waive immunity, so the plaintiff’s lawsuit was barred.

Slip-and-fall accidents are unfortunately common. When they occur on private property due to negligently maintained land or dangers on the property (such as potholes, exposed nails, and rotten flooring), the injured party may typically recover damages from the property owner. This is based on a theory that landowners owe a duty of care to visitors, and that duty encompasses a duty to maintain the land and inspect it to ensure that it is free from unreasonable dangers. This case is unusual in that the property owner was a government entity, and thus immune from liability for monetary damages. The court’s decision is specific to this set of facts and may not apply in all circumstances.

Woman Claims Maryland Fall Accident Left Her with a Russian Accent

June 3, 2010 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Robin Vanderlip says she suffers from Foreign Accent Syndrome because she was injured in a Maryland fall accident three years ago. The 42-year-old says that because a handrail at the conference center in Chevy Chase was faulty, she fell backwards down a staircase and hit her head.

Vanderlip, who is American, claims that because of her head injury, she had a stroke and now can only speak with a Russian accent. She also suffers from fatigue and memory problems.

The single mother of two is seeking over $1 million in Maryland personal injury compensation from the National 4-H Council. Meantime, she continues to undergo treatment at the University of Maryland and the National Institutes of Health. Vanderlip says that her daughter is embarrassed by her foreign accent.

Maryland Attorney Sues Baltimore For Burn Injuries Caused By Fall Accident into Construction Hole

October 10, 2008 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

In Maryland, a North Baltimore attorney that sustained serious personal injuries after falling into a construction hole is suing the city, a number of Trigen-Baltimore Energy Corp. entities, Ligon & Ligon Inc., and Johnson Controls Inc. Arianne Spaccarelli sustained serious burn injuries to nearly half her body in the fall accident that occurred in 2005.

In her Maryland personal injury lawsuit filed in Baltimore City Circuit Court, Spaccarelli and her husband Robert Galassi blame the party’s negligence for her fall into the steam pit. The accident occurred at the intersection of Saratoga Street and Guilford Avenue when the couple was walking back to her car after dinner.

Spaccarelli had been walking next to a fenced off construction area, when she fell into the pit. The lawsuit maintains that the construction hole existed beyond the fence. Her husband pulled her out of the hole, but not before she sustained second-and third-degree burns on more than 43% her of her body.