Maryland Accident Law Blog

St. Patrick’s Day Safety Tips from Maryland Department of Transportation

March 17, 2021 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

St. Patrick’s Day is known for being a big drinking holiday. Despite the COVID-19 pandemic, this will likely ring true this year as Maryland recently lifted indoor dining restrictions in the state. Though bars and restaurants in the state had previously been able to operate at 50 percent capacity, they were allowed to operate at full capacity just in time for St. Patrick’s Day. Unfortunately, drunk driving crashes and pedestrian crashes are common on St. Patrick’s Day. For this reason, the Maryland Department of Transportation cautions residents to exercise safe driving practices by getting a ride home, and being extra vigilant on St. Patrick’s Day to avoid a Maryland car accident.

If someone decides to go out drinking, there are some precautions that can lessen the risk of a crash. First, designate a sober driver. If someone is going to drive, decide ahead of time who that person will be. Second, plan to eat throughout the evening. Eating throughout the night will create a buffer between the alcohol you are consuming and your stomach and slow the absorption of alcohol. Third, drink water. Drinking water throughout the night helps to reduce overall alcohol consumption and keeps you hydrated. Fourth, do not leave your drink unattended or accept drinks from strangers. Fifth, have a backup plan. Use a rideshare app to get home, call or a taxi, or have a friend on call if things do not go as planned. Sixth, watch out for pedestrians. Alcohol consumption is involved in almost half of pedestrian crashes. Be vigilant if you are driving and if you are on foot. Seven, take care of your friends. Make sure that your friends have a safe and sober ride home, as well.

How Do You Prove a Car Accident Case?

In the event of a Maryland car accident alleging negligence, an injured individual must prove that the defendant was negligent by acting or failing to act in some way. This means proving that the defendant had a duty to exercise reasonable care toward the individual, that the defendant failed to exercise reasonable care, that defendant’s failure to exercise reasonable care caused the individual injuries, and that the individual suffered damages. In the case of gross negligence, a plaintiff must prove the elements of a negligence case, and must show that the defendant acted with a wanton or reckless disregard for others. In a drunk driving case, others may be responsible in addition to or in lieu of the driver, including a parent or another person who negligently entrusted the driver with a car, or a bar who served the driver alcohol when they were already visibly intoxicated.

Can Maryland Car Accident Victims File a Third-Party Injury Claim After Receiving Workers’ Compensation Benefits?

March 11, 2021 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

If an individual is acting within the scope of their employment when they are injured in a Maryland car accident, they may receive workers’ compensation benefits for their injuries. Generally, if a worker receives workers’ compensation benefits by way of Maryland’s Workers’ Compensation Act, they cannot seek damages through a civil lawsuit from their employer. That rule, known as the exclusivity rule, was put in place so that workers would receive benefits solely through workers’ compensation, allowing them to receive benefits quickly while limiting employers’ liability. However, injured accident victims can file a Maryland injury claim against a third party under Maryland law based on their negligent conduct.

Can an Injured Worker Sue an Employee After a Workplace Accident?

Under Maryland law, a co-employee is generally considered a third party. In the event that an injured worker or an employer receives compensation through a third-party injury claim, the employer may be able to receive reimbursement for the workers’ compensation paid to the injured worker.

Hundreds of Crashes Reported in Maryland After Major Winter Storms

March 4, 2021 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Hundreds of crashes were reported in Maryland in the first major winter storm of the year in the state. The storm brought snow, sleet, and freezing rain to Maryland roads. According to a recent news report, there were 501 crashes, 233 disabled or unattended vehicles, and over 1,600 calls for service. A car turned over on Interstate 83 in one crash. Another crashed caused lanes to close on Interstate 70. Another crash left one man dead. According to law enforcement, the man was riding the back of a recycling truck when the driver lost control on an icy road, causing the truck to overturn and pinning the man under the truck. Officials said that most of the crashes were due to speed and explained that speed limits are set for ideal road conditions.

According to the Federal Highway Administration of the U.S. Department of Transportation, weather can affect road safety by affecting pavement friction, traffic flow, driver capabilities, vehicle performance, crash risk, and agency productivity. Weather-related crashes, injuries, and fatalities account for 21 percent of vehicle crashes. Weather-related crashes kill more people each year than large-scale weather disasters, including tornadoes, hurricanes, and flooding, according to the U.S. Department of Transportation.

Drivers in the state of Maryland have a duty to exercise reasonable care while operating a vehicle, which means that they must drive carefully given the circumstances. This means that while driving the speed limit may be reasonable in perfect weather conditions, it likely is not reasonable in bad weather conditions, such as dense fog or on icy roads. Drivers must also exercise reasonable care whether they encounter emergency situations, such as another accident in the roadway, considering the time the drivers have to respond to the situation and evaluate the choices.

Alleging Strict Liability After a Maryland Product Liability Accident

February 24, 2021 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

In a Maryland strict liability case, a plaintiff must show that there was a defect in the product that existed when the product left the defendant’s control, that the defect makes the product unreasonably dangerous, the defect caused the plaintiff’s injuries, and that it was foreseeable that the product would be in such condition when it reached the consumer. A defect may include the failure to warn a consumer of the risks involved in using the product.

How Do Strict Liability Claims Work?

In considering a strict liability claim, a court will consider whether the plaintiff proved that the defendant’s conduct actually caused the plaintiff’s injuries. In cases where only one negligent act is at issue, Maryland courts consider whether but-for the defendant’s conduct, the injuries would not have occurred. In cases where two or more independent acts caused the plaintiff’s injury, Maryland courts consider whether it is more likely than not that the defendant’s conduct was a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff’s injuries. A defendant may also try to defend against a strict liability claim by attempting to shift the blame on the consumer. A defendant may be successful if can show that the consumer was negligent by voluntarily and unreasonably confronting a known danger.

In a recent product liability case before a federal appeals court, the court considered whether the plaintiff had sufficiently proven a strict liability claim. In that case, the plaintiff rented an electric drain rodder from the Home Depot to unclog a drain in his home. He was using the device at home and because the powered reverse did not work, he tried to remove the cable by hand. The cable wrapped around his arm and he was thrown to the ground. His hand was badly injured and most of his right index finger had to be amputated. The plaintiff sued the Home Depot and the product manufacturer for negligence, breach of warranty, and strict product liability.

Separating Phases of a Trial in a Maryland DUI Case

February 17, 2021 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Separating phases of a trial, known as bifurcation, often occurs when failing to do so would introduce issues in another phase that would improperly influence the jury. For example, in a criminal DUI case, if a defendant had a prior DUI, the case might be split into the guilt and sentencing phases so that the jury would not be influenced by the prior DUI in deciding whether the defendant is guilty. In a Maryland civil DUI case, the case might be split into a compensatory damages phase and a punitive damages phase, so that the jury would not be influenced by the fact that the defendant was driving drunk in deciding the amount of damages the plaintiff should be awarded. Similar concepts apply in Maryland car accident cases.

Who Decides Whether to Bifurcate a Personal Injury Trial?

In Maryland, the trial judge has the discretion to decide whether to bifurcate or trifurcate a personal injury trial. The trial judge’s decision may be overturned if the trial judge abused his or her discretion. Under Maryland Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 2-503, a judge may separate trial of a claim or issue because it would be convenient or to avoid prejudice.

When Can an Employer Be Held Liable for Their Employee’s Negligence After a Maryland Accident?

February 10, 2021 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Individuals injured in Maryland accidents have the ability to file a personal injury lawsuit against the party who negligently caused the accident. In some cases, they can also bring suit against the defendant’s employer, who may be more able to financially compensate the victim. But typically, to recover under this theory of vicarious liability against the employer, an individual must prove that the employee’s negligent actions occurred in the course and the scope of their employment. This can be a confusing doctrinal point for many potential plaintiffs, but it basically means that employers cannot be sued for things their employees did outside of their work—if an employee who gets weekends off gets drunk one Saturday night and goes on a drive to a bar, for example, their employer typically cannot be held liable if they cause a car accident because that accident had nothing to do with their employment. This is an important nuance to understand in the doctrine for plaintiffs considering filing suit against a negligent defendant and their employer.

The term “within the scope of employment” means that an employees actions that caused another’s injuries occurred while they were acting as an employee versus on their personal time. Generally, employers are liable for an employee’s negligence, provided the employee was acting as an employee. Although it is counter-intuitive, commuting to and from work is not generally seen as within the scope of an employee’s work.

One recent state appellate case illustrates this doctrine and how it may come up. According to the court’s written opinion, the defendant in the case was an employee at a deli, and sometimes made deliveries with his own car. One morning, his manager called him early to make a delivery later that day, and he agreed. He left for work a little earlier than usual that morning so he could do some prep before taking the delivery. On his way to work, he lost control of his car and struck another vehicle, killing the two men inside. A blood test after the accident showed that he had marijuana in his system at the time of the accident. The deceased driver’s wife filed suit against the employee and his employer, arguing that they were vicariously liable for the accident. The employer filed for summary judgment, arguing that the employee was not acting in the course and scope of his employment at the time of the accident.

Winter Weather Results in Tragic Maryland Car Accident

February 3, 2021 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

As February came, so too did a big winter storm, hitting the East Coast hard. Maryland was covered in snow, which, while pretty, can cause major complications on the roads and highways. Winter weather is a major contributing factor to Maryland car accidents and driving during or after a winter storm can be dangerous. Even smaller instances of winter weather than the one recently experienced can be cause for concern—freezing rain, for example, can cause roads to ice over, making them slippery and making it more difficult for drivers to control their vehicles or stop.

For example, take a recent tragic Maryland car accident. According to a local news report, a fatal accident occurred in Jessup one Tuesday morning, on I-95 just before Maryland Route 32. Early that morning, three cars were involved in a minor crash, causing them to pull off of the road. Shortly after, the registered owner of one of the vehicles, a 36-year-old man, arrived at the scene to assess the damage. At this time, according to Maryland State Police, a driver of a silver Honda Civic traveling north on I-95 lost control of his car and then hit a Honda Accord. The impact of the crash pushed the Honda Accord into the owner assessing his vehicle, and fatally pinned him in between two vehicles. He was pronounced dead at the scene. Others were injured in this series of accidents as well—one man was taken to the University of Maryland Shock Trauma center, and three other individuals were taken to Howard County General Hospital with injuries.

Local authorities believe that both crashes were caused by weather conditions, specifically, a storm on Monday evening that caused ice and slick spots on the roads Tuesday morning. In fact, Maryland State Policy said that between Monday at 5 PM to Tuesday at 5 AM, their officers responded to 63 crashes and 28 disabled/unattended vehicles and answered 424 calls for service. This highlights how important it is for Maryland drivers to remain vigilant and on high alert when driving during winter weather, or to avoid driving if they can.

Filing a Third-Party Work Injury Claim After a Maryland Accident

January 27, 2021 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Many Maryland residents go to and from work every day without ever experiencing any major accidents. Sometimes, however, accidents occur on the job, and employees will find themselves injured because of something that happened while they were working. These accidents can take many forms. For example, mailmen might get bitten by a dog while delivering mail, or they might trip while walking up to someone’s door to drop off a package. Grocery store workers might slip on a wet floor, or mechanics might get injured by faulty machinery. In many of these circumstances, the employee would be eligible to claim worker’s compensation and recover financially for their losses against their employer. In some cases, however, a worker may also be able to bring a third-party work injury claim to recover for the damages they have suffered.

What Is a Third Party Injury Claim?

Third-party work injury claims are filed by an employee injured on the job against a negligent party other than their employer—a third party. This type of claim is available when the injury was caused in full or in part by a party other than the employer.

For example, take a tragic accident from earlier this month. According to a local news report, the accident occurred around 7:30 one night at a Home Depot. A delivery driver (who did not work for Home Depot) was delivering construction materials when a load of drywall fell on him at the store, striking and ultimately killing him. Not much more is known about this incident right now, but it was clearly an unexpected tragedy.

Res Ipsa Loquitur in Maryland Accident Cases

January 20, 2021 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

The doctrine of res ipsa loquitor relates to the plaintiff’s burden of proving a negligence case. Generally, the fact that an accident or injury occurred is not evidence of negligence itself. However, in cases where the doctrine of res ipsa loquitor is applied, a plaintiff may be able to show that the type of accident itself signifies that negligence can be inferred in that case. In a Maryland car accident case, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitor can be applied if the accident is one that would not normally occur in the absence of the operator’s negligence, and the facts make it clear that there should be an inference of negligence. For example, a car rolling down a hill shortly after it is parked may be a situation in which the doctrine would be applied, and negligence could be inferred.

What Is Res Ipsa Loquitor?

The res ipsa loquitor doctrine permits a plaintiff in a Maryland accident case to establish a prima facie case of a defendant’s negligence. To invoke the doctrine under Maryland law, the plaintiff must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that: (1) the injury is one that would not normally occur absent negligence; (2) the defendant had exclusive control of the instrument that caused the injury; and (3) the injury was not caused by the plaintiff.

Filing a Maryland Product Liability Claim After the Recall of a Dangerous Product

January 13, 2021 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Companies regularly issue recalls for products that may cause illnesses or injuries to consumers. If an individual has been injured by a defective or unreasonably dangerous product, a recall of the product can serve as an indication that the product is unsafe in a Maryland product liability claim.

Complaints concerning products are investigated by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). The agency works to promote consumer safety by investigating and evaluating complaints and coordinating recalls. The CPSC can issue a voluntary recall or a mandatory recall, depending on the nature of the defect, though most CPSC recalls are voluntary recalls. The company responsible then must follow through to actually recall the product. The agency will announce the recall and offer a remedy to consumers affected by the recall.

How Does a Recall Affect a Manufacturer's Liability After an Accident Involving a Dangerous Product?

Even if a consumer receives a replacement or a refund for the item, a consumer can still file a product liability claim against the company responsible for the defective product. Filing a claim against the responsible company allows injured consumers to recover compensation for their injuries due to the defect. There are different avenues for recovery in a product liability claim. For a strict liability claim based on a defective product, the plaintiff is not required to prove that the company acted negligently. Rather, the plaintiff must only demonstrate that the product was defective when it left the defendant’s control, that there was no substantial change in its condition before it reached the consumer, that the product was unreasonably dangerous, and that the defect caused the plaintiff’s injuries. Negligence or breach of warranty may also provide avenues for recovery.