Maryland Accident Law Blog

The Maryland Tort Claim Act and How It Affects an Accident Victim’s Right to Recovery

April 25, 2018 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

As a general rule, state actors, including employees and state-run agencies, are entitled to official government immunity when it comes to personal injury lawsuits. However, each state is free to enact certain exceptions for when an accident victim is able to pursue a claim for compensation against a state actor. Thus, all states have a tort claims act, or something similar, in which the waiver of official government immunity is discussed.

Maryland’s Tort Claims Act (MTCA) is different in that it broadly waives immunity for cases involving damages totaling less than $200,000. Thus, in Maryland, rather than immunity completely barring an accident victim from recovering damages for their injuries, the Tort Claims Act merely limits their recovery. However, immunity is not waived when the government actor’s actions are determined to be grossly negligent. A recent case discusses how this can play out in a Maryland wrongful death lawsuit against a government official.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiffs were the parents of a man who was killed while an inmate in a Maryland prison. According to the court’s recitation of the facts, the man was killed by another inmate. The case proceeded to trial against several inmates as well as the State of Maryland. At the conclusion of the case, the jury found that several corrections officers were “negligent,” and one correctional officer in particular who was tasked with supervising the inmates had acted grossly negligently.

Court Dismisses Slip-and-Fall Plaintiff’s Case Based on Conflicting Testimony

April 16, 2018 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Recently, a state appellate court issued a written opinion in a personal injury case involving a plaintiff’s conflicting testimony, requiring the court to determine which version of the plaintiff’s testimony to credit. The case presents a valuable lesson for Maryland slip-and-fall accident plaintiffs in that it illustrates how courts analyze cases in which a party offers two versions of the same event. Ultimately, in this case, the court concluded that the version of the facts that least favored the plaintiff should be credited, resulting in the court granting the defendant’s motion for summary judgment.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff was an office manager at a tax-preparation business that was located in a business owned by the defendant. One day, the plaintiff arrived to open the store and went toward the back office to turn on the lights. As the plaintiff approached the rear of the office, she slipped after stepping in a puddle of water that had accumulated on the floor.

When asked in a pre-trial interrogatory, the plaintiff explained that it was not raining on the day of her accident. She also explained that she was aware of previous flooding and, in fact, knew that the office flooded the night before her fall. However, an employee had cleaned up the water by the time the plaintiff had left.

Court Upholds Government Immunity in Recent Hiking Accident Case

April 9, 2018 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Recently, a state court issued a written opinion in a personal injury case involving a young man who was seriously injured while hiking in a city-owned park after hours. The case required the court to determine if the city was entitled to government immunity regarding the plaintiff’s claim that the city should have installed a retaining wall near the trail’s edge. Ultimately, the court concluded that the city was entitled to immunity because the plaintiff’s allegations involved the design of the trail, which was covered under the state’s official immunity.

The case is important for Maryland premises liability plaintiffs because Maryland courts apply similar laws in cases against local governments.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff and several friends snuck into a city-owned park after dark to go “ghost hunting.” While the plaintiff was making his way down a steep embankment to the trail below, he lost his footing, fell, and rolled down the hill. When the plaintiff reached the trail, he was traveling with so much momentum that he slid across the trail and over the ledge. The plaintiff fell about 10 feet before landing on the ground and then slamming into a tree.

Court Discusses Admissibility of Social Media Evidence in Recent Personal Injury Case

April 2, 2018 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Recently, a state appellate court issued a written opinion in a personal injury case that presents an interesting issue that frequently comes up in Maryland personal injury cases. The specific claim at issue was over the defendant’s access to the plaintiff’s private Facebook account.

The court ultimately concluded that the defendant met the necessary showing that the requested evidence was material and would likely lead to the discovery of relevant evidence. Thus, the court compelled disclosure of some of the information, posts, and photographs in the plaintiff’s private Facebook account.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff suffered a serious brain injury while riding a horse that was owned by the defendant. The plaintiff filed a personal injury claim against the defendant. In her claim, the plaintiff noted that while she used to be very active on social media and enjoyed traveling, cooking, etc., she could no longer enjoy these activities because she had a difficult time composing messages that made sense. She also claimed that she had become reclusive, and, while she used to post on social media “a lot,” she rarely did so after the accident.

Court Finds in Favor of Plaintiff Attacked by a Pack of Dogs

March 26, 2018 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Earlier this month, an appellate court handed down a decision in a personal injury case involving a plaintiff who was seriously injured after she was attacked by several dogs belonging to the defendant. The case required the court to determine whether the owner of the dogs could be held strictly liable for the injuries caused by the dogs. Additionally, the court had to determine if the plaintiff’s potential negligence in bringing about her own injuries should factor into the jury’s decision.

The case presents several interesting issues for Maryland dog bite victims because Maryland law applies a similar standard to that which is applied in the case. However, under Maryland’s contributory negligence law, a plaintiff who is found to be even the slightest bit at fault for her own injuries will be precluded from recovery. Thus, while the laws applied in the case are different in some ways from those in Maryland, the case is still illustrative of how a similar case could proceed in a Maryland courtroom.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff, who was on a friend’s property hunting squirrels, was attacked by a pack of dogs belonging to the defendant. The plaintiff brought a personal injury lawsuit against the dogs’ owners, arguing that the owner of a dog is strictly liable for any injuries caused by the dog. Thus, under the plaintiff’s argument, there need not be a showing of negligence in order for a dog’s owner to be found liable; proof of ownership is sufficient to establish liability.

Court Rejects Plaintiff’s Premises Liability Case Because Hazard Was “Open and Obvious”

March 18, 2018 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Earlier this month, a federal appellate court issued a written opinion in a premises liability lawsuit brought by a man who was injured while loading purchased rolls of insulation into his truck. The case required the court to determine whether the large, unstable stack of insulation that fell on top of the plaintiff was an “open and obvious” hazard. Ultimately, the court concluded that the hazard was open and obvious, and thus it determined that the business did not owe a duty to the plaintiff.

The case is important for Maryland accident victims to understand because it illustrates one of the avenues a defendant in a Maryland premises liability lawsuit may take in an attempt to evade legal responsibility.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff and his son purchased several large rolls of insulation from the defendant hardware store. Due to their size, the rolls were kept in a separate storage warehouse. The cashier told the plaintiff to drive to the warehouse, where he could find the rolls and load them into his car.

Court Sides with Plaintiff in Recent Spa Injury Case

March 11, 2018 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

In Maryland personal injury lawsuits, it is imperative that a plaintiff is not found to be even the slightest bit at fault in causing her injuries. This is because Maryland is one of the few states that applies the doctrine of contributory negligence when it comes to determining which plaintiffs are entitled to recover compensation for their injuries.

Under the doctrine of contributory negligence, a plaintiff is precluded from recovering for her injuries if the defendant can establish that the plaintiff shared some responsibility in bringing on her own injuries. This strict rule – disavowed in most states – can bar recovery for a plaintiff who is determined to be just 1% at fault.

Earlier this month, an appellate court issued a written opinion in a personal injury case involving a defendant’s claim that the plaintiff’s negligence played a role in her injuries. However, the court ultimately concluded that the defendant’s position was unsupported by any admissible evidence, and it affirmed the judgment in the plaintiff’s favor.

The Revisionary Power of Maryland Courts

March 1, 2018 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

When a jury comes to a decision in a Maryland car accident lawsuit, that verdict is given great respect by the legal system. Except in the most unusual circumstances, a jury’s conclusion as to a party’s liability is insulated from judicial review. However, in some situations, a judge does retain power over the amount of a plaintiff’s jury verdict.

Maryland Rule 2-535

Under Maryland Rule 2-535, when asked by a party in the lawsuit, a court can “exercise revisory power and control over the judgment.” Essentially, this means that a judge has the power to review a jury’s award amount for reasonableness. Thus, if the court finds that an award amount was too small or too large, it can revise the award. If, after the judge comes up with a revised award amount, the party that requested the revision is not satisfied, the judge will then grant a new trial. Importantly, once a judgment becomes final, which is 30 days after it is entered, a judgment can only be revised if it is a result of “fraud, mistake, or irregularity.”

A recent case from another jurisdiction discusses a similar rule and how it applied in a car accident case in which the jury failed to consider uncontroverted evidence.

Maryland’s Recreational Use Statute

February 22, 2018 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Maryland has a diverse and unique landscape, providing ample opportunity for Marylanders to get outside and engage in the hobbies they enjoy. Whether it’s crabbing on the Chesapeake, fossil hunting in Calvert Cliffs, mountain biking, rock climbing, or kayaking, there is always something to do in Maryland.

Each of these activities, however, presents some level of risk that something goes wrong. And while the individual engaging in the activity certainly bears some responsibility to make sure that they are being safe, landowners that allow for people to use their land may also have a duty in certain situations, as Maryland premises liability law provides. Maryland’s recreational use statute governs when a landowner has a duty – and thus can be held liable for a violation of that duty – to those whom the landowner allows to use their land.

Maryland Code section 5-1104 explains that, in general, “an owner of land who either directly or indirectly invites or permits without charge persons to use the property for any recreational or educational purpose or to cut firewood for personal use does not . . . extend any assurance that the premises are safe.” Nor does the landowner “assume responsibility for or incur liability as a result of any injury to the person.”

Court Holds Hotel May Have Voluntarily Assumed Duty to Provide Aid to Imperiled Guest

February 15, 2018 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Earlier this month, an appellate court in California issued a written opinion in a personal injury case involving a woman who suffered a brain aneurysm while in her room at the defendant hotel. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant hotel voluntarily assumed a duty of care to assist her but failed to provide the necessary level of assistance. The appellate court determined that the plaintiff did show sufficient evidence to raise an issue of fact that should be resolved by the jury.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff planned to stay in the defendant hotel. Before she left, she informed her husband that she would be at the hotel and told him that she would call him when she arrived. The plaintiff arrived at the hotel and checked in to her room but never called her husband.

The plaintiff’s husband called the hotel, looking for his wife. He spoke to the front desk employee and asked if she could call the room to check on the plaintiff. The front desk employee called, but there was no answer. The front desk employee then asked a maintenance worker to conduct a wellness visit to the plaintiff’s room.