Maryland Accident Law Blog

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.

Maryland Failure-to-Warn Strict Liability Cases

February 8, 2018 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

When a manufacturer markets a product to the public, it is expected that the statements made by the manufacturer are at least based on truth. While it is true that the law does allow for manufacturers to exaggerate, or “puff,” some claims regarding a product’s effectiveness, when it comes to matters of safety, all statements made must be true. In fact, a manufacturer’s failure to adequately warn of safety risks may be the basis of a Maryland product liability lawsuit. This is because, under Maryland law, a defective or non-existent warning is considered a product defect.

Maryland law subscribes to the “strict liability” method when determining liability under a failure-to-warn analysis. This means that, regardless of a company’s knowledge or negligence, the company can still be liable for injuries that were caused by the company’s failure to warn consumers of a product’s dangerousness.

Recent Study Suggest E-Cigarettes May Not Be a Safe Alternative to Smoking

As the dangers involved with smoking cigarettes have become more known and appreciated among all ages and demographics in the United States, more and more people are shifting to e-cigarettes because they have been marketed as a safer alternative to smoking. However, earlier this year, a team of researchers based out of New York University’s School of Medicine released a study uncovering some potential health risks of e-cigarette use – or “vaping.”

Court Considers Whether Maryland Plaintiff’s Case Against Nursing Home Had to Comply with Medical Malpractice Requirements

February 1, 2018 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

When a Maryland nursing home resident is injured due to the alleged negligence of a nursing home employee, the injured resident and their family may be entitled to monetary compensation for the injuries sustained. However, depending on the circumstances surrounding the accident that caused the injury, the victim may need to file the case as a Maryland medical malpractice case.

Generally speaking, under Maryland’s Health Claims Act, claims based on a “medical injury” filed against a “health care provider” must comply with certain additional requirements to which other Maryland personal injury cases are not subject. Essentially, the question is whether the claim arose from the provision of health care or health care-related services. However, it is not necessarily clear whether a specific claim fits within this class of cases. A recent case illustrates one Maryland court’s attempt at resolving a dispute involving a nursing home resident’s fall.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff was a resident at the defendant nursing home. One day, while lying in bed, the plaintiff fell off the bed because the mattress was not secured to the bed frame. The plaintiff remained on the floor for approximately 45 minutes before a nursing home employee arrived to assist her.

Court Finds Ski Resort’s Accident Release Waiver Valid, Dismissing Ski Injury Plaintiff’s Case

January 22, 2018 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Earlier this month, a federal appellate court affirmed the dismissal of a personal injury case filed by a skier against the ski resort where she was injured while getting off the chairlift. The case is important for Maryland accident victims because it discusses the validity of an accident release waiver signed by the plaintiff, as well as the contractual language contained on the back of the lift ticket.

Ultimately, the court concluded that both the accident release waiver as well as the contractual language on the back of the lift ticket were enforceable, and it precluded the plaintiff from pursuing her claim against the ski resort.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff arranged to take a ski lesson at the defendant ski resort. Prior to getting the lesson, the plaintiff signed an accident release waiver. The waiver stated that the skier understood and voluntarily accepted the inherent risks of skiing, and she agreed not to hold the resort liable for any injuries she sustained, even those injuries caused by the negligence of the resort or its employees.

Court Finds in Tenant’s Favor in Recent Premises Liability Case Against Landlord

January 15, 2018 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Earlier this month, an appellate court in Nebraska issued a written opinion in a personal injury case involving a tenant who was injured while ascending the concrete steps to the residence she leased from the defendant landlord. The case presents a relevant and important issue for Maryland personal injury plaintiffs in that it shows the types of cases that can be brought when a tenant is injured due to a defect in the leased property, as well as the standards used by courts to evaluate a tenant’s claim for damages.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff leased a home from the defendant. Prior to the plaintiff taking possession of the residence, the landlord was cited for several code violations, including a sunken concrete step leading into the front door of the home.

The plaintiff moved in, and about 18 months later, she tripped and fell as she was climbing the concrete steps into the home. Specifically, the heel of the plaintiff’s shoe got stuck in a small crack between the top step and the front patio. This caused the plaintiff to fall, resulting in an injury to her ankle.

Plaintiff Nearly Loses Opportunity to Pursue Compensation Due to Late-Filed Expert Affidavit

January 8, 2018 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Earlier this month, a state appellate court issued a written opinion in a medical malpractice case illustrating the importance of complying with all procedural rules in medical malpractice cases. Indeed, the point is especially important for Maryland medical malpractice plaintiffs to understand because very similar requirements apply under Maryland state law.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff was the parent of a child who was born with serious injuries and birth defects. The defendant was the delivering physician. The plaintiff filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against the defendant, arguing that the care provided by the defendant fell below the generally accepted level of care and that this lapse was the cause of her child’s injuries.

Under state law, the plaintiff had 60 days to file an affidavit of merit from a qualified expert in the field. However, due to an admitted lapse on the plaintiff’s attorney’s part, the affidavit was not filed. The defendant filed to dismiss the case based on the plaintiff’s failure, and the court granted the defendant’s motion. The plaintiff appealed to a higher court.

Court Resolves Dog Bite Case in Favor of Plaintiff

January 2, 2018 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Earlier this month, an appellate court in Georgia issued a written opinion in a dog bite case requiring the court to discuss an owner’s liability for their dog’s dangerous actions. The court ultimately concluded that the plaintiffs presented sufficient evidence to survive a summary judgment challenge by the defendants, and the case was permitted to proceed toward trial or settlement negotiations. The rules discussed in the case may be of interest to plaintiffs in Maryland dog bite cases as well.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiffs were neighbors with the defendants, who had recently permitted their adult son to move back into their home. The defendants’ son brought his pit bull, named Rocks, with him into the defendants’ home. The defendants permitted Rocks to stay with them as long as he was kept in a kennel in the back yard and not allowed to run loose.

While Rocks was at the defendants’ home, there were two instances when he acted aggressively. First, Rocks growled at the plaintiff husband when he came over to visit with the defendants. However, Rocks did not lunge at the plaintiff husband or bite him. The second instance was when Rocks growled aggressively at the defendant wife when she went to feed him. Notwithstanding these instances, the defendants permitted Rocks to remain at their home.