Maryland Accident Law Blog

When Can Maryland Independent Contractors Be Held Personally Liable?

March 5, 2020 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

When filing a legal claim against an independent contractor after a Maryland accident, an independent contractor may claim that they cannot be held independently liable. Maryland courts have recognized that there are times in which independent contractors are also agents of another, often reliving them of independent liability. However, that is not always the case, and the party that claims there is a principal-agent relationship must prove the existence of such a relationship.

In a recent state appellate case, the court considered whether a personal trainer was an agent of a gym. In that case, the plaintiff was using a weight machine when she fractured a bone in her hand, requiring her to undergo two surgeries. She was under the direction of a personal trainer at the time she injured her hand, and she claimed the personal trainer improperly instructed her on how to use the machine, thereby causing her injury. The plaintiff brought a claim against the gym and the trainer, who had been contracted by the gym. The trainer argued that she was an agent of the gym, and could not be held independently liable because the gym had hired her to teach there. In contrast, the plaintiff argued the personal trainer was not an agent of the gym because she was an independent contractor there.

The court explained that there are circumstances in which a person may be an independent contractor and an agent of the principal. It explained that these circumstances exist where a contractor is a fiduciary that owes the principal loyalty and obedience. Examples of this include attorneys, brokers, and collection agencies. But in cases in which an independent contractor claims to be an agent, the independent contractor must establish the characteristics of the principal-agent relationship, including the principal’s right to control the physical conduct of the agent. In this case, there was not sufficient evidence that the trainer was an agent of the gym to dismiss the case against the trainer. Therefore, the court held that the case should continue against the trainer and that a jury would be required to resolve the issue.

Expert Witness Testimony in Maryland Medical Malpractice

February 25, 2020 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

When Maryland or Virginia residents are injured because of medical malpractice, the laws of the states allow them to file suit to recover against negligent medical professionals. This process can be incredibly complicated, and virtually all plaintiffs must rely on expert witnesses to make their case. Expert witnesses can testify to the court about how the injuries happened, what the defendant should or should not have done, the appropriate industry standards in a particular area, or the extent of the resulting injuries.

Recently, a Virginia appellate court considered a case involving a question of whether a plaintiff’s expert witness testimony survived a defendant’s motion to strike. After the plaintiff presents their evidence, the defendant may file a motion to strike the evidence from the record (or vice versa). If granted, it means that the court or jury cannot consider that evidence in their final decision.

In the recently decided case, the court began by describing the tragic facts. The patient, during her first pregnancy, had an incompetent cervix and had a cervical cerclage surgically placed. About a week after placement, the patient reported discomfort and pain in her abdomen, legs, and lower back to her doctor, who dismissed her concerns. Two days later, she called back about her pain and a new fever, and her doctor prescribed her some medicine via the phone, with no physical examination. Unfortunately, the patient continued to experience symptoms and called again, getting a different doctor who again prescribed her medicine via the phone, without a physical examination. Several hours later, the patient called back, and was finally directed to the hospital, where it was discovered that she had a severe infection. Her condition worsened in the hospital, and unfortunately, she passed away in the intensive care unit several days later.

Holding Companies Accountable for Their Defective Products Through a Maryland Product Liability Lawsuit

February 19, 2020 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Anyone who has been injured by a defective product knows that holding the company accountable is an important step to make sure that other people do not suffer the same harm. In fact, filing a Maryland product liability case against the manufacturer is one of the most effective ways to hold the company responsible for manufacturing a defective product.

In a products liability case, there are generally three theories of recovery: negligence, breach of warranty, and strict liability. Under a strict liability theory of recovery, a plaintiff does not need to prove that the company acted carelessly in creating the product. A Maryland products liability claim requires that a plaintiff show, 1.) that the product was defective when it left the company’s control; 2.) that there was no substantial change in the product’s condition prior to its reaching the consumer; 3.) that the product was unreasonably dangerous; and 4.) that the product’s defect caused the victim’s injuries.

Even products that are not defective must also contain an adequate warning about the potential dangers of the product. A manufacturer must adequately disclose the risks and instruct consumers on the correct use of the product. Warnings and instructions about the product’s dangers and the correct use of the product must be clear, direct, and easy to understand. Courts will take into consideration the knowledge and expertise of the consumers that are reasonably expected to use the product. Damages available to plaintiffs in product liability cases include medical bills, the costs of future treatment, loss of income, mental anguish, and pain and suffering.

Summary Judgment in Maryland Personal Injury Cases

February 11, 2020 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Movies and television may have people believe that most civil lawsuits end in a dramatic trial. While this does sometimes happen, most Maryland personal injury lawsuits actually do not make it this far. Sometimes the parties settle with each other prior to trial, or sometimes a judge will find that there is no need to go to trial because one party cannot win. Many cases are decided at what is called “summary judgment.” Before trial, both parties can file a motion for summary judgment, which is basically asking a judge to rule in their favor. Summary judgment is proper if there is no genuine issue of material fact, such that there is nothing for a jury to decide and a trial is inappropriate.

For an illustration of how summary judgment can work, take a recent state appellate case. According to the court’s written opinion, the accident occurred while the plaintiff was cleaning out her daughter’s car in a cleaning area of their apartment complex. As the plaintiff stepped from the paved parking lot up to a landscaped area that had a car vacuum, she slipped and fell backward, resulting in substantial injuries. The plaintiff filed a negligence action against the apartment complex, alleging that she had slipped on a foreign substance. During her deposition for the case, she testified that she did not know what caused her to fall, and that there was no water on the ground, but that the rocks were smooth and slippery.

According to the plaintiff, the defendant apartment complex was negligent in maintaining the complex’s premises. However, the defendants filed for summary judgment, arguing that the suit had to be dropped because there was insufficient evidence of any hazardous condition. While the lower court denied the motion, on appeal the court found that the defendants were correct. The court reasoned that summary judgment was proper in the case because the plaintiff had not offered evidence that the area she slipped on was actually wet or otherwise hazardous, and in fact testified that there was no liquid in the area and that she did not know what made her slip.

Statutes of Limitations in Maryland Tort Claims Act Cases

February 4, 2020 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

The Maryland Tort Claims Act (MTCA) was enacted in 1981. Under the Maryland Tort Claims Act, immunity is generally afforded to the state, and to state employees for their actions that are carried out without malice or gross negligence. Because it may apply in Maryland accident cases, understanding the statute, its limits, and its requirements, is extremely important.

Under the MTCA, a written claim against the state must be filed with the State Treasurer within one year of the cause of action arising. The claim must include a statement of facts and specific damages. If the Treasurer denies the claim, the case can be filed in court. However, it still must be filed within three years of when the cause of action arises. There are some exceptions to the rule, including if the State already had notice of the injury within the year after the cause of action accrued. In addition, filing a claim with the State Treasurer tolls the statute of limitations for 60 days after a final denial is made by the State Treasurer.

In a recent state appellate decision, the court considered whether another statute acted as an exception to the state’s tort claims act. Under the state’s act, there is a two-year statute of limitations for submitting claims to a state agency and also to file suit under the Act. If the state makes a final decision and denies the claim, the claimant has an additional six months from the date of mailing of the notice to file suit if the statute of limitations would expire before the end of that period.

Watch Out Maryland! Around 200,000 Pounds of Eggs Recalled Due to Listeria Outbreak

January 28, 2020 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

When individuals eat, they expect the food to be healthy and safe for consumption. Unfortunately, contaminated food can make its way into grocery stores and restaurants without anyone realizing it until it is too late. For example, last month a large food company voluntarily recalled around 200,000 pounds of hard-boiled and peeled eggs after they were linked to a listeria outbreak. According to a prominent news source covering the recall, the outbreak affected five states, including Pennsylvania which borders Maryland. As a result, one individual died and four were hospitalized.

Officials from the Food and Drug Administration discovered listeria during a routine inspection of the food company’s facility. Listeria causes fever, diarrhea, nausea, headache, and stiffness, and typically those who eat contaminated food show symptoms one to four weeks afterward. The resulting illness can be severe, and sometimes deadly: about 260 people die from it each year, according to The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

When individuals get ill or suffer premature death as a result of eating contaminated food, a voluntary recall of the product is too little, too late. While the recall may prevent others from being harmed from the product, it does not help the victims and their families, who may have accumulated large medical expenses. However, Maryland law provides an avenue for these individuals to recover against the food company through civil suits. Those directly harmed and/or their families may be able to bring a negligence claim against the food manufacturer. To be successful in these claims, the plaintiff typically must show that the manufacturer had a duty to ensure that the food was safe, that the manufacturer breached their duty either through an act or an omission, that the manufacturer’s breach caused the plaintiff’s illness, and that the plaintiff suffered real damages as a result.

Is Expert Testimony Necessary in Maryland Accident Claims?

January 21, 2020 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Expert testimony can be helpful in certain claims to explain evidence to the fact finder. In Maryland accident cases, expert testimony may be admitted if the court decides that the testimony will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or decide a fact at issue. Yet, expert testimony is required only if the issue is beyond the knowledge of a layperson. Expert testimony is not required “on matters of which the jurors would be aware by virtue of common knowledge.” A recent decision from a state supreme court is an example of a case in which the court found expert testimony was not required.

In that case, a child was allegedly assaulted on the playground during recess at her elementary school. The student and her mother filed a claim against the city and the Board of Education alleging negligence. The trial court found in favor of the plaintiffs, holding that the school provided inadequate supervision at the time. The trial court found there were 3 or 4 staff members and 1 student intern, which was insufficient to supervise over as many as 400 students. An appellate court reversed the decision, stating that the court should not have found the defendants breached their duty without expert testimony on the issue.

However, the state’s supreme court reversed again. The court held that expert testimony was not necessary in that case. The court explained that expert testimony is required generally in cases amounting to professional malpractice. Expert testimony is not required in cases where the negligence is so extreme that it is clear to a layperson and it is not required where the alleged error is within the common knowledge of a layperson.

Establishing Negligence Per Se In Maryland Personal Injury Cases

January 15, 2020 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Maryland personal injury lawsuits, although often complicated, boil down to four simple elements. In order to be successful, the plaintiff must prove (1) the defendant owed them a duty; (2) the defendant breached that duty; (3) the breach caused the plaintiff’s injuries; and (4) the plaintiff suffered real damages as a result. In some cases, the first two of these elements can be established just by the existence of a statute and the defendant’s violation of that statute. When this happens, the claim is considered negligence per se, and the plaintiff then only really has to establish two of the elements, instead of four.

A state appellate court recently considered a negligence per se claim in a wrongful death suit. According to the court’s written opinion, the deceased was driving his four-wheeler on another’s property, and the owner had given him permission to be there. While driving, one of the vehicle’s wheels fell into a well that was hidden from view by vegetation. This caused the vehicle to turn over, and the driver fell into the well and tragically died.

The deceased’s wife, the plaintiff in this case, brought a negligence action against a forestry service who had done work on the property, alleging that they were negligent in failing to report the open well to the property owner. The plaintiff pointed to a state statute that required anyone aware of “an open abandoned well or hole” located on “public or private property” to the governing authority. According to the plaintiff, this statute created a duty, and the defendant’s failure to report the well-constituted a breach of that duty, satisfying two of the required elements in a negligence suit.

The Doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur in Maryland Accident Cases

January 6, 2020 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

In some personal injury cases, there is no direct evidence that a party was negligent, but there is also no other reasonable explanation for how the plaintiff’s injuries occurred. The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applies in cases in which negligence can be inferred, based on the circumstances, but there is no direct evidence of negligence. Under Maryland law, res ipsa loquitur is available in accident cases if an injury or accident “is one which ordinarily would not occur without negligence on the part of the operator of the vehicle,” and “the facts are so clear and certain that the inference of negligence arises naturally.” Res ipsa loquitur allows a plaintiff to establish a prima facie case of negligence, without having direct evidence of negligence. The doctrine requires that a plaintiff show: (1) the accident was a type that does not normally occur absent negligence, (2) the accident was caused by an instrument exclusively in the defendant’s control, and (3) the accident was not caused by the plaintiff. In a recent case, a court considered the applicability of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur after small metal fragments were discovered in a container of yogurt.

According to the court’s opinion, the plaintiff bought a small container of yogurt that was manufactured and packaged by Yoplait. The plaintiff claimed that she opened the container, stirred it, and began eating, when she felt a crunching sensation, which she found out were sharp metal fragments. She was taken to a hospital, where 17 metal fragments were removed from her stomach. She filed claims against Yoplait for negligence and negligence per se. A trial court found that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applied in this case because there was “an inference that the metal flakes were inserted . . . prior to the container being sealed.” But the trial judge found that Yoplait had rebutted the inference and dismissed the case.

The appeals court held that the judge should not have dismissed the case because if res ipsa loquitur applies, the case should go to a jury for a decision. The court explained that the doctrine warrants an inference of negligence, rather than a presumption of negligence. Therefore, the trial court should have allowed the jury to make a decision concerning Yoplait’s negligence and whether Yoplait overcame the inference of negligence. Accordingly, the appeals court sent the case back to the trial court for further proceedings. The court also noted that Yoplait failed to appeal the court’s ruling that res ipsa loquitur applied in the case, so it could not decide whether that decision was correct.

The Assumption of Risk Doctrine Is a Common Barrier to Maryland Plaintiffs

December 27, 2019 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

When someone is injured in a Maryland accident, state law allows them to file a civil lawsuit against the responsible party. In order to be successful in a negligence claim of this type, the plaintiff must prove four things. First, the defendant owed a duty of care toward the plaintiff to act in a way to protect them from harm. Second, the defendant breached this standard. Third, the breach was the proximate cause of the injury. Finally, the plaintiff was injured and suffered actual harm as a result. In a straightforward negligence case, proving these four things will be enough for victory. However, many negligence cases get complicated, and there are some common barriers that bar plaintiffs from recovery. One of these barriers is the assumption of risk doctrine.

The term “assumption of risk” refers to when the plaintiff unnecessarily exposed themselves to the harm that was done to them. For example, a recent state appellate case considered the issue. According to the court’s written opinion, the plaintiff was helping the defendant dismantle an old building and noticed that there were skylights on the roof. The plaintiff volunteered to go up on the roof and remove the screws. Since the roof was so dirty and weathered, he was unable to see the skylights. While working on the roof, the plaintiff fell through a skylight and onto the concrete below, suffering multiple severe injuries. The plaintiff then sued the defendant, the owner of the building, for negligence.

Under Maryland laws, situations like this become more complicated than a straightforward negligence case because the defendant can argue that the plaintiff assumed the risk of his injuries by going up on the roof, knowing that there were skylights and that he could not see them. In these cases, the defendant can raise this defense by proving three things. The plaintiff had knowledge of the risk, the plaintiff understood that the risk could lead to serious harm, and the plaintiff voluntarily assumed the risk anyway. In the case described above, for example, the defendant must prove that the plaintiff was aware of the skylights on the roof and understood that they were fragile and that falling through them would cause harm, yet he volunteered to go up on the roof anyway. If the defendant can do that, Maryland law would allow him to escape liability for the plaintiff’s injuries.