Maryland Accident Law Blog

Damages Available in Maryland Product Liability Lawsuits

September 15, 2020 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Maryland product liability lawsuits allow consumers to pursue a claim for compensation against the manufacturers, distributors, and resellers of hazardous products. A product liability suit filed against a responsible party may permit an injured plaintiff to recover a range of damages, and it is important for an accident victim to fully understand what may be available when determining the best course of action for their family.

The term damages refers to the financial compensation owed to an accident victim based on the other party’s wrongful conduct. In Maryland, damages are generally made up of compensatory damages, which are divided into two categories: economic and non-economic damages. Economic damages, also referred to as special damages, are damages that consist of a fixed dollar value, such as past and future medical bills, loss of income, transportation costs, and others. Non-economic damages, also referred to as general damages, are damages that do not have a fixed value, such as pain and suffering, loss of consortium, and mental anguish. Compensatory damages are meant to compensate the victim for their pain and losses. Generally, damages must be proven by a “preponderance of the evidence,” which means that it is more likely than not to be true.

Punitive damages are also available in some Maryland cases. For a punitive damages award under Maryland law, a plaintiff must establish that the defendant acted with knowing and deliberate wrongdoing. This must be proven by clear and convincing evidence. Punitive damages are generally reserved for cases involving egregious conduct, such as deliberately selling a defective product that the seller knew could cause physical harm without proper warnings. Punitive damages are meant to punish wrongful actors and to deter others from similar behavior. Statutory damages are also available in some cases based on mandates under the law.

Maryland Slip and Fall Accident Victims May Face Challenges if They Were Aware of the Hazard Causing Their Fall

September 8, 2020 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

When someone slips and falls, causing injuries, they may be entitled to bring a personal injury lawsuit against whoever owns the property or was responsible for leaving it in a hazardous condition. Maryland slip and fall accidents are frequently brought against cleaning companies for failing to post “wet floor” notices, or against grocery store owners who fail to notice or remedy a leak that causes a customer to slip and suffer injuries. However, Maryland residents should be aware that not every slip and fall case leads to a successful personal injury suit.

For example, take a recent slip and fall case decided in a state appellate court. According to the court’s written opinion, the plaintiff was working in an airport when the accident occurred. One evening, after completing her shift, she went to an office elsewhere in the airport to turn in some paperwork and money. As she got off of an escalator, she noticed a man cleaning the airport was to her left and a “wet floor” sign. She turned right and walked towards the office when she slipped and fell. Unfortunately, she landed hard on her right side, striking her head and briefly losing consciousness. When she regained consciousness, she noticed that her clothes were wet. As a result of her fall, she suffered neck and spinal injuries that required surgery.

The plaintiff brought suit against the independent contractor responsible for cleaning the area. Her suit was based on the defendant’s negligence, claiming that they had knowledge of the danger that she did not have but failed to warn her of the hazard of the wet floor. The defendant moved for summary judgment and to have the case dismissed, arguing that the plaintiff also had knowledge of the hazard. The trial court granted their motion, and the plaintiff appealed.

Holding Drivers Accountable in Maryland Car Accidents Caused by Emergency Situations

August 27, 2020 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Unfortunately, Maryland drivers encounter dangerous situations all the time—a car stopped in the middle of the road, debris blocking the roadway, or even a chain-reaction crash. Yet, even when a Maryland driver encounters a dangerous situation, the driver must respond reasonably to the situation under the circumstances. Failure to do so may make the driver liable for resulting injuries. Under Maryland law, a driver who “suddenly finds himself in a position of peril” is not expected to exercise the same care as when the driver has sufficient time to decide what he should do. This is known as the emergency doctrine and may apply in some Maryland accident cases. However, the doctrine does not apply when the peril comes about because of the driver’s own negligence or if the driver is not actually in a position of sudden peril. Where a driver does take an action in response to the emergency, a jury (or judge) must consider whether the driver made a choice that a reasonable, prudent person would make considering the choices he had and the time he had to recognize and evaluate those choices.

In a recent case involving the sudden emergency doctrine before one state appellate court, the court explained how and where the sudden emergency doctrine applies under that state’s law. In that case, the defendant was driving on the highway and changed lanes and passed a stopped vehicle to avoid crashing into the stopped vehicle. The plaintiff’s husband’s vehicle was behind the defendant’s vehicle and crashed into the stopped vehicle. The plaintiff’s husband died and the plaintiff filed a wrongful death action against the defendant and others.

The defendant argued that the sudden emergency doctrine applied and acted as a complete defense. The defendant argued that the sudden emergency was the stopped car that he encountered in the road. The plaintiff argued that the defendant created the emergency by changing lanes at an unreasonably late time for the plaintiff’s husband to see the stopped car. The plaintiff argued that the sudden emergency was the husband’s inability to see the stopped car because of the defendant’s late lane change.

Establishing the “Duty” Element of a Maryland Personal Injury Case

August 19, 2020 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

In order to hold another person or entity liable for injuries sustained in a Maryland accident, the defendant must have owed a duty to the plaintiff to protect the plaintiff from the harm the plaintiff suffered. For example, a person who falls on a sidewalk generally cannot hold another passerby liable for the injuries from the fall because the passerby was not involved in the fall and did not owe a duty to prevent the person’s fall or even to render aid to the person. However, for example, the city might be liable for the person’s injuries if it failed to repair the sidewalk. In such a case, the city might have had a duty to repair the sidewalk if it was made aware of the sidewalk’s dangerous condition, and may have failed to meet its duty by failing to take any action.

Under Maryland law, duty is characterized as an obligation to meet a certain standard of conduct towards another. In considering whether a defendant owed a duty to a plaintiff in a certain scenario, courts will consider the relationship between the defendant’s conduct and the plaintiff’s injury and whether the harm the plaintiff suffered was foreseeable, among other things. A recent decision from another state appeals court illustrates the limits of a hotel’s duty to a guest in one scenario.

In that case, the plaintiff brought a wrongful death claim against the hotel on behalf of their deceased loved one. Evidently, the deceased accident victim was a guest at the hotel, which offered guests a free golf cart service to take guests around the property. Per the hotel’s policy, the golf cart would cross a local public road next to the hotel to drop guests off on the other side but otherwise did not travel on public roads. One night, the accident victim asked a bellman to give him a ride in the golf cart, and asked to go to a grocery store which was across a highway. Per the hotel’s policy, the bellman did not take the decedent to the store and instead dropped him off on the other side of the public road. The decedent was required to cross the highway to get to the store and while waiting to cross on foot, he was hit by a car and later died.

Filing a Maryland Injury Claim Based on a Product Recall

August 13, 2020 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

A product recall is not a prerequisite to filing and winning a Maryland product liability claim. Yet, product recalls are often a precursor to litigation against the seller, because a recall is an indication that the product is not safe for its intended use. If a product is recalled because it is not safe for its intended use, the agency that called for a recall will offer a remedy for consumers affected by the recall. A consumer can still file a suit against the manufacturer, distributor, and often retailer of the unsafe product.

A government agency can suggest or require a company recall its product, but the company itself has to follow through and issue the recall itself. In some cases, an agency may issue a voluntary recall, and the offending company is left to decide whether to issue a recall. In other cases, an agency may issue a mandatory recall, and the offending company is required to issue a recall.

In a strict liability case, the plaintiff has to show in general that the defendant’s product was defective and that the defect caused the plaintiff’s injuries. Unlike in a negligence case, in a strict liability case the plaintiff does not need to show that the defendant was negligent in some way but rather focus on the defective product. In the case of a misrepresentation related to a product, a potential plaintiff may be able to recover damages if the plaintiff relied on the misrepresentation and is harmed by the misrepresentation. A product must also adequately warn about potential dangers and risks inherent in a product and provide consumers with information about the correct use of the product if necessary.

What Is Res Ipsa Loquitur and When Can It Be Used in Maryland Accident Cases?

August 5, 2020 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

There are certain personal injury cases where there is no specific evidence tying the defendant to the accident, but it is clear that the defendant caused the accident and should be held liable. In these instances, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur can often be utilized. Res ipsa loquitur is Latin for the “thing speaks for itself” and allows a jury to infer the defendant’s negligence without needing direct evidence. While not often used, res ipsa loquitor can be extremely beneficial to help Maryland plaintiffs recover for their injuries, who might not be able to so otherwise.

In a recent state appellate case, a plaintiff was injured leaving his doctor’s office. Stepping onto the elevator, the plaintiff did not notice the floor of the elevator was two feet below the landing. The plaintiff sued the property owner, arguing the owner was negligent by not fixing the elevator. Among other claims, he argued the defendant was liable under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. Although the defendant had sole control over the elevator, and was in charge of its maintenance, the court granted summary judgment for the defendant. During the appeal, the plaintiff chose not to raise the issue of res ipsa loquitor, meaning a jury would not hear this claim.

When a plaintiff asserts res ipsa loquitor in a Maryland personal injury case, they are claiming that negligence may be presumed from the circumstances of the accident. Unlike a traditional negligence claim, a plaintiff relying on res ipsa loquitor does not need to establish the traditional requirements of negligence, nor do they need to provide direct evidence linking the defendant to the accident.

What Constitutes a Design Defect in a Maryland Product Liability Case?

July 28, 2020 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Individuals pursuing a product liability case in Maryland courts can bring their claim under one or more of the three types of Maryland product liability claims: manufacturing defects, design defects, and warning defects. Under Maryland law, a design defect case considers whether a manufacturer knew the risks inherent in the product and unreasonably put the product on the market despite the risk. This may mean, for example, that a product malfunctions due to its design or that it lacked a reasonable safety device. A design defect focuses on the risks and benefits of the product’s design and on the specifications for constructing a product.

A recent case before another state’s appeals court considered whether a rat was a product under strict liability law. In that case, a 10-year-old boy purchased a rat from a Petco store. Two weeks after the 10-year-old purchased the rat, he fell ill. He was taken to the hospital and died shortly after he arrived. It was later revealed that the boy contracted a rare bacterial infection — rat bite fever (RBF) — from the rat he had purchased at Petco and he died from complications related to the infection. The boy’s father filed a claim against Petco, alleging in part that the store was strictly liable for his son’s death. The man argued that the rat was a defective product and that Petco was liable under a strict products liability theory.

The appeals court held that a live pet animal sold in its unaltered state was not a “product” subject to the design defect consumer expectations theory. According to the evidence presented at trial, 10 to 100 percent of wild rats carry the bacteria streptobacillus moniliformis, the bacteria that causes the infection in humans. The court stated that a rat carrying streptobacillus moniliformis is not in a diseased condition (which would be the defect in this case), because the infection that the boy developed is developed by some humans after exposure to streptobacillus moniliformis. Thus, the court reasoned that the rat could not be a defective product. It further explained that in a design defect case there must be a “design” of the product, and that in this case, pet rats living in their natural state are not “designed.” Therefore, the rat living in its unaltered state could not be a product subject to a design defect theory. The court also reasoned that the store could not have prevented the defect because the animal was living in its natural state free from disease. The court noted that, although it rejected the design defect claim, the plaintiff could file claims of negligence, negligent warning, and warning and manufacturing strict liability causes of action.

How Courts Deal with Obvious Hazards in Maryland Slip and Fall Cases

July 21, 2020 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

A state supreme court was recently tasked with deciding whether the owner of a church could be held liable after the plaintiff was injured on the stairs outside of the building. While Maryland landowners often have to warn visitors of any danger, they do not need to if the dangerous condition was an open and obvious hazard that a reasonable person would recognize. Ultimately, the court concluded that the dangerous condition was open and obvious, and the church owner was not liable for the plaintiff’s injury under a premise liability theory.

According to the court’s opinion, the plaintiff was hurt while carrying a casket down the church’s outdoor steps. Although the plaintiff had previously used these steps, he tripped near the top, falling into the church building and injuring himself.

While landowners generally have a duty to keep their property safe, in Maryland, they do not need to warn others if the hazard is “open and obvious” to a reasonable person. When the dangerous condition is open and obvious, the landowner cannot be held liable under a premise liability theory. In this case, the court needed to determine whether the top step outside of the church was an open and obvious hazard that a reasonable person would have taken appropriate care to avoid. The court noted that the set of stairs the plaintiff tripped on had five steps, with the top step an additional four inches higher than the others. Additionally, the top step was composed of red bricks while the other steps were made of gray concrete. Finally, the court took note of the fact that the plaintiff walked down the stairs a few minutes before the accident. Because of these factors, the court concluded that the differences between the top step and the other four would be readily apparent to most people.

Could Jury Misconduct Overturn A Favorable Verdict in Maryland Accident Cases?

July 14, 2020 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Personal injury suits are incredibly important for those who injured in a Maryland accident. The lawsuits can help to ensure that those hurt get compensated for their medical bills, future care needs, lost wages, and more. While many Maryland personal injury cases settle before trial, some will go to trial. However, a recent state appellate case illustrates that obtaining a favorable jury verdict may not be the end of the case—sometimes, a losing party can appeal and request a new trial if they believe there was a legal error in the trial.

According to the court’s written opinion, the case arose from a tragic accident in a daycare facility. In September of 2015, an unsecured television fell onto the victim—who was not yet two years old—while he was sleeping at the daycare facility. Part of his skull was crushed, and he was put on a ventilator for nine days. Years later, the victim continues to suffer from severe developmental issues. At five years old, he could not talk or control his bowel movements and frequently had mood swings, fits, and outbursts. It was believed that he would need 24-hour-care for the rest of his life. Because of the severe injuries, the victim’s parents filed suit against the daycare, alleging negligence in their care.

The parents won the case in the trial court, and were awarded $30.3 million in damages. However, the defendants appealed, asking for a new trial. Evidently, there had been an instance of jury misconduct during the original deliberations, and the defendants believed that it was significant enough to demand a new trial. According to the court, the misconduct occurred when one juror used his cellphone to google the meaning of a word that came up in conversation. The specific word was not disclosed in the record. The trial court investigated the incident, asking each juror what happened, if they were aware, and if it affected their decision in the case. By law, the jury is not allowed to search for or consider any additional information other than what was offered during the trial, so this incident could have resulted in a new trial.

How the Common Law Exception May Affect Maryland Medical Malpractice Claims

July 7, 2020 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

On this blog, we talk about a wide variety of Maryland accidents, including slip and falls, car accidents and medical malpractice cases. The general premise behind all Maryland personal injury lawsuits is the same: state law allows those injured due to someone else’s negligence to recover financially by bringing a personal injury lawsuit against the negligent parties. However, it is important to keep in mind that different types of personal injury lawsuits may be grounded in the same basic idea but subject to very different procedural requirements. This is especially true for medical malpractice cases. Failure to follow the proper requirements could result in a plaintiff’s Maryland medical malpractice suit being thrown out, even if it would otherwise have been a winning case.

For example, take a recent state supreme court case which considered the procedural requirements for filing a medical malpractice suit. The case arose when the plaintiff sued a spa and its employee after allegedly being sexually assaulted during her massage in April of 2014. The plaintiff sued the spa (the massage therapist’s employer) for negligence in the training, supervision, and retention of the massage therapist. The defendant spa, in response, filed a motion for summary judgment. The spa argued that the plaintiff had not met the procedural requirements for filing a medical malpractice suit, since they had not filed the required certificate of good faith with the complaint. The question before the court was whether the common knowledge exception to the requirement applied—whether laypersons, using their common knowledge and without expert testimony, could decide whether the spa was negligent. If so, then the certificate was not needed because the case would not be subject to the requirement. If not, then the certificate was needed to file suit and the plaintiff’s suit must be dismissed. The common knowledge exception is common in many states, including Maryland.

The state supreme court ultimately determined that the common knowledge exception applied because no expert testimony was needed to decide this case. The court noted that the plaintiff was not claiming that the massage therapist negligently performed the massage, used improper technique, used excessive force, or anything of that nature. As such, no expert testimony was needed on the proper standard of care for massage therapists, force to be applied, or techniques. The question is one of sexual assault—which does not involve the technical or specialized knowledge of a medical professional. As such, the defendant’s motion for summary judgment had to be denied, and thus the plaintiff could move forward with her claim.