Maryland Accident Law Blog

Can a Plaintiff’s Failure to Use Safety Equipment Be Used Against Them in a Maryland Personal Injury Case?

May 28, 2019 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Maryland is known to have some of the harshest laws when it comes to determining which accident victims are able to recover for their injuries. Under Maryland’s contributory negligence rule, plaintiffs who are found to have even the slightest role in causing an accident or bringing about their own injuries are completely precluded from recovering for their injuries. That being said, there are some situations where Maryland law protects an accident victim’s ability to recover for their injuries.

One of the situations where an accident victim’s “negligence” cannot be used to defeat their claim against a defendant is when, at the time of the injury, the plaintiff was not wearing safety equipment that could potentially have reduced the plaintiff’s injuries. For example, a defendant may attempt to argue that a plaintiff’s failure to wear a motorcycle helmet or seat belt in a Maryland traffic accident was evidence of the plaintiff’s negligence. However, in these circumstances, Maryland courts have held this evidence is inadmissible. A recent state appellate decision helps explain the rationale behind this rule.

In that case, the plaintiff was helping the defendant cut down some trees on the defendant’s property. The agreement between the two men was that the plaintiff would use a chain saw to cut the trees and the defendant would watch out for any potential hazards. However, as the plaintiff was using the chainsaw to take down a tree, a dead limb came loose and fell on his head, resulting in serious injuries.

Maryland Workplace Accidents Caused by Dangerous and Defective Products

May 21, 2019 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Each year, thousands of employees are injured in Maryland workplace accidents. While a Maryland workers’ compensation claim may be an injured worker’s sole remedy in some cases, that is not the case when a non-employer third party is responsible for the worker’s injuries. Thus, being able to identify a third party who was responsible for a worker’s injuries may allow an injured worker to pursue a Maryland personal injury case in addition to a workers’ compensation claim.

Product liability claims are common in Maryland third-party workplace accident cases because the dangerous or defective nature of a product rarely implicates an employer’s negligence. A recent case illustrates the type of situation in which an employee may be able to pursue a product liability claim after being injured on the job.

According to the court’s opinion, the plaintiff was performing electrical work on a construction site while standing atop a 12-foot ladder. As the plaintiff was working, an air conditioning unit that was anchored into the concrete ceiling came loose, striking the plaintiff. The plaintiff fell off the ladder, landing on the ground. As a result of the fall, the plaintiff sustained serious injuries.

Procedural Requirements in Maryland Medical Malpractice Cases

May 13, 2019 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

While all personal injury cases are subject to certain procedural rules, the rules that apply to medical malpractice cases are perhaps the strictest. For example, Maryland medical malpractice cases are subject to strict timelines and require plaintiffs to provide an expert affidavit explaining that the plaintiff’s claim has merit.

Because Maryland medical malpractice cases are subject to strict rules, there is often litigation as to whether a plaintiff’s claim is being brought under a theory of medical malpractice or if it is a claim of simple negligence. In almost all cases, the plaintiff will claim that the case is one of simple negligence, while the defendant will argue the case involves a claim of medical malpractice. If a defendant can convince the court that the plaintiff’s claim is one of medical malpractice, it may be too late for the plaintiff to comply with the procedural requirements, thereby defeating the claim entirely.

While the specific factors used by the courts to resolve these disputes are complex, the determination essentially comes down to whether the plaintiff is making a claim of professional negligence and, if so, whether the claims present issues that are beyond the common understanding of most jurors. A recent opinion illustrates that it is not always easy to determine whether a case is brought under a theory of medical malpractice or traditional negligence.

Maryland’s “Firefighter’s Rule” and How It Can Apply to Maryland Personal Injury Cases

May 7, 2019 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Under Maryland premises liability law, someone who is injured while on another’s property may be able to hold the property owner liable for any injuries they sustain as a result of the landowner’s negligence. However, there are certain exceptions to this general rule. One exception is the “firefighter’s rule.”

Maryland’s firefighter rule “generally prohibits firefighters and police officers from recovering tort damages from those whose negligence necessitated their services.” The rule and its history are described in depth in a 2011 opinion authored the Maryland Court of Appeals.

In that case, a police officer was injured in a high-speed chase. Evidently, the police dispatcher gave the officer incorrect information that the officer relied upon when deciding to engage in the high-speed chase. The injured police officer filed a Maryland personal injury claim against the state based on the dispatcher’s negligence. The state claimed that the police officer should be prevented from recovering for his injuries under the firefighter’s rule. The case allowed the court to discuss the state’s firefighter rule and in what circumstances it should be applied.

Maryland Swimming Pool Accidents

April 26, 2019 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

As summer approaches, those who have swimming pools on their property will soon be getting the pool ready for the hot Maryland summer. While swimming is an important skill for children to learn, and can be an excellent way for older people to engage in a low-impact workout, both of these groups are at a high risk of drowning. Understanding this reality, Maryland lawmakers have heavily regulated the placement and operation of swimming pools in hopes of reducing the number of Maryland swimming pool accidents.

The most common cause of accidental drowning deaths in Maryland swimming pools is a lack of adult supervision. Most of these tragic accidents occur when a child has been unsupervised for less than five minutes. Thus, while supervision is the best preventative measure, additional safety precautions must also be taken.

Under Maryland’s swimming pool regulations, pool owners must obtain a permit to construct, alter, or replace a residential pool. The permit application requires prospective pool owners to obtain detailed plans of the pool, and comply with certain safety features. One of the most important requirements is that the pool is surrounded by a fence that is at least six feet tall and has no opening, other than through an open door, greater than four inches. Interestingly, however, a ladder to get out of the pool is not required under Maryland Code.

Can Injured Skiers and Snowboarders Pursue a Maryland Personal Injury Claim Against a Ski Resort?

April 17, 2019 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Skiing is the favorite seasonal pastime of many Maryland recreationalists. However, skiing can be a dangerous sport, especially when the ski resort does not take the necessary safety precautions. While the winter ski season has passed, now is a good time for those who were injured in a Maryland skiing accident to consider whether they may have a claim for compensation against the resort where their injuries occurred.

In general, ski resorts – like other landowners – have a duty to ensure that areas accessible by guests are safe and well maintained. This includes not just the resort’s skiable areas, but also restaurants, restrooms, locker rooms, and parking lots. When management is negligent in the operation of the resort, they may be held liable for any injuries that occur as a result of that negligence.

One issue that frequently comes up in ski accident cases is whether the injured skier gave up their right to pursue a claim against the ski resort by signing, or otherwise acknowledging, the resort’s release of liability. A recent case illustrates how courts review cases in which a defendant ski resort relies on a printed release of liability.

How Maryland’s Recreational Use Statute Can Affect an Accident Victim’s Case

April 11, 2019 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Frequently, this blog discusses cases in which a defendant landowner faces liability for injuries that occur on their property. These cases, referred to as Maryland premises liability cases, are brought under the general theory of negligence. Thus, to succeed in a Maryland premises liability case, an accident victim must show that the defendant was somehow negligent and that the defendant’s negligence was the cause of their injuries.

While the general rule states that a landowner is liable for a guest’s injuries that were the result of the landowner’s negligence, the Maryland recreational use statute provides landowners immunity in certain limited situations. Under Maryland Code section 5-1104, a landowner who permits others to use their property for “any recreational or educational” purpose without charging a fee is not liable for guest’s injuries. This applies to both public and private landowners. The law’s stated purpose is to “encourage any owner of land to make [their property] available to the public for any recreational and educational purpose by limiting the owner’s liability.”

The recreational use statute does not afford protection to landowners who willfully or maliciously failed to guard or warn against a dangerous condition. A recent state appellate opinion illustrates how courts interpret recreational use statutes, as well as the “willful or malicious” exception.

Common Defenses to a Maryland Premises Liability Claim

April 5, 2019 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

It has often been said that the best offense is a good defense. Thus, it is essential for those who have been injured in a Maryland slip-and-fall accident to understand the common ways that a defendant will try to defeat a plaintiff’s claim. There are two basic arguments that Maryland premises liability defendants use to evade accountability.

At its most basic, a Maryland premises liability claim requires the plaintiff to establish that the defendant landowner was negligent in the maintenance of their property. It may be that a landowner failed to warn visitors of a known hazard or that the landowner failed to remedy a hazard that, given the circumstances, the landowner should have known about. In either case, to prove a landowner’s negligence, the plaintiff must show that the defendant landowner knew or should have known about the hazard.

One common tactic is for a defendant landowner to argue that he did not have knowledge of the hazard. Importantly, Maryland premises liability law does not require a plaintiff to prove that a landowner had actual knowledge of a hazard. Indeed, most Maryland slip-and-fall cases proceed on the theory that the landowner had constructive knowledge of the hazard.

A Maryland Landlord’s Duty to Protect Tenants

March 25, 2019 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

A Maryland landlord cannot ensure the safety of its residents, but it does have a duty to take reasonable security measures. In a recent case before a state appellate court, the court considered the extent of a condominium’s responsibility to protect its residents.

The Facts

According to the court’s opinion, the plaintiff was a new resident at a condo in downtown Atlanta. The declarations for the condominium stated that it was not responsible for providing security to residents. However, the plaintiff claimed the association provided what he considered to be security measures, such as security gates, and that these features contributed to him deciding to purchase the property.

Evidently, a security gate outside the property required a key fob for access, which he was told would be provided by the defendant property management company. More than two weeks after closing on the property, he was given a fob, but he could not get the fob to open the vehicle-access gate. The plaintiff contacted the company on multiple occasions. As he was attempting to resolve the issue with the key fob, about a month after he moved in, he was the victim of a violent attack on the sidewalk outside of his condominium complex. He had arrived home around 2:00 a.m. with his girlfriend, and after not being able to enter through the gate, and decided to park on the street. He got out of his car, and was stabbed three times in an attempted robbery.

Does Round-Up Weed Killer Pose a Cancer-Risk to Maryland Users?

March 15, 2019 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

There are many different types of Maryland product liability cases. Some product liability cases involve manufacturing mistakes while others are based on the defective design of a product or that it is unreasonably dangerous. Recently, the manufacturer of Round-Up weed killer has been in the hot seat after thousands of frequent users of the product have developed a specific type of cancer. While the manufacturer of the product claims that the product is safe, others argue that high levels of exposure can result in users developing non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.

Currently, a jury is considering phase one of a bellwether trial in San Francisco. A bellwether trial is the first case to proceed to trial that presents an issue that is also presented by many other pending lawsuits that have been filed by plaintiffs who are making similar claims. Thus, the result of a bellwether trial can be incredibly important to how the other subsequent lawsuits proceed. For example, if a judge decides a specific pre-trial motion in favor of the plaintiff, the defendant may be more willing to settle the subsequent cases.

According to a recent news report, the case involves a man who developed non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma after using Round-Up over 300 times in his 26-year career. The man claims that his use of Round-Up throughout his career was a “substantial factor” in causing his cancer. In addition, the plaintiff claims that the manufacturer of the product attempted to influence the public’s perception of the product’s safety by influencing scientists and regulators.