Maryland Accident Law Blog

Court Finds Government Immune to Design Defect Case Arising from Allegedly Dangerous Roadways

January 11, 2016 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Earlier last month, a California court heard a case against the County of San Diego brought by an accident victim who was injured when he was struck by another motorist on a roadway he claimed was poorly designed. In the case, Hampton v. County of San Diego, the court ultimately determined that the government’s sovereign immunity was not waived, and as a result it was immune from the lawsuit.

Hampton v. County of San Diego: The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff was a man who was seriously injured when he was involved in a collision with another motorist on a rural intersection. The man filed suit against the other driver in an unrelated case, in which he admitted he could not remember if he stopped at the stop sign prior to entering the intersection. The other driver testified in that case that the plaintiff pulled out “right in front of him, leaving too little time to stop before the collision.” The Highway Patrol conducted an investigation and determined that the accident was caused by the plaintiff’s failure to stop at the stop sign.

After that lawsuit, the plaintiff filed this case against the County, claiming that it designed and maintained a dangerous roadway. Essentially, the plaintiff claimed that the design and construction of the road provided inadequate visibility of oncoming traffic due to a high embankment that was covered with vegetation.

Court Holds Hospital Slip-and-Fall Accident Does Not Trigger Medical Malpractice Requirements

January 4, 2016 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Earlier last month, one state supreme court handed down an opinion distinguishing accidents that occur at a hospital but do not involve a breach of a professional medical duty from actions brought under a theory of medical malpractice. In the case, Galvan v. Memorial Hermann Hospital System, the plaintiff was a woman who was injured when she slipped and fell while visiting a loved one in the defendant’s hospital.

According to the court’s written opinion, the plaintiff was walking from the hospital’s pharmacy to her loved one’s room when she slipped and fell after stepping in a puddle of water that had formed outside the door to a restroom. The plaintiff filed suit against the hospital under a premises liability theory.

The Pre-Trial Motion for Summary Judgment

The hospital claimed that, since the injury occurred at a hospital, the heightened requirements of a medical malpractice lawsuit applied. Specifically, the plaintiff in this case did not submit an expert’s affidavit supporting her position. Thus, in a pre-trial motion, the hospital asked the court to dismiss the lawsuit because the plaintiff failed to comply with a necessary procedural requirement that applies to all medical malpractice lawsuits.

Insurance Company Escapes Liability for Non-Covered Driver

December 22, 2015 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Earlier this month, a California appellate court issued an opinion in a case between accident victims and the insurance company of the at-fault driver. In the case, Nationwide National Insurance Company v. Shimon, the at-fault party’s insurance company was determined not to be liable for the injuries sustained by the accident victims because the policy did not cover “non-owed” automobiles that were “furnished or available” for the driver’s regular use.

The Facts of the Case

The Shinons (“the Plaintiffs”) were injured as a result of the negligence of a 17-year-old girl, Lionudakis. At the time of the accident, Lionudakis was driving a GMC that was owned by and registered to her father. However, to save money, her father did not list her on the insurance policy.

Lionudakis’ mother, who was separated from Lionudakis’ father, maintained a separate insurance policy that covered her own vehicles, but not the GMC. The policy did, however, cover family members’ use of “non-owned” vehicles, as long as they were not furnished for the family members’ regular use. This restriction was contained in the insurance agreement.

How to Tell Whether You Have Been the Victim of Medical Malpractice

December 15, 2015 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Doctors, nurses, and other medical professionals are charged with the venerable duty to keep their patients healthy to the best of their ability. Of course, sometimes there is nothing that a medical professional can do to prevent illness or death, since it is the inevitable course of the human existence. However, sometimes the treatment that a medical professional provides raises questions, such as did the doctor do everything he could to diagnose the condition in time for effective treatment? Or was the patient adequately informed of the risks of the procedure prior to agreeing to go through with it?

In these cases, there may be a viable medical malpractice action against the medical professional. However, it is well known that these cases are complex and often involve expert testimony. For that reason, it is best to get an experienced medical malpractice attorney involved early in the process, preferably as soon as the patient notices that there may be something wrong.

A successful medical malpractice case requires, among other things, that the patient prove that the care provided by the medical professional fell below the accepted professional standards in the industry. Often, this is where the bulk of litigation occurs.

U.S. Supreme Court Discusses Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act in Recent Decision

December 8, 2015 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Earlier this month, the United States Supreme Court decided a case that gave the court occasion to discuss the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (the “Act”). The Act is an agreement among nations that limits the liability of foreign governments. The Act generally gives foreign sovereign countries immunity unless the alleged conduct falls within one of the Act’s several exceptions.

In the case, OBB Personenverkehr AG (OBB) v. Sachs, the plaintiff was a California woman who purchased a Eurorail pass over the internet through a U.S.-based travel retailer. In Austria, the plaintiff was attempting to board a train when she fell through a gap between the rail car and the boarding platform. After she fell, a train ran over her legs, requiring the amputation of both her legs. The woman filed suit against OBB, which is wholly owned by the Austrian government.

At trial, OBB sought to dismiss the case against it based on the Act, which generally grants foreign governments immunity from lawsuits. The plaintiff, however, claimed that her case met an exception to the Act’s grant of immunity, specifically that her case “is based upon a commercial activity carried on in the United States by [a] foreign state.”

Court Holds Slip-and-Fall Plaintiff “Assumed the Risk” of Injury When Visiting Haunted Attraction

December 1, 2015 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Earlier this month in California, an appellate court heard a case brought by a young man who was injured when he tripped and fell after being startled at a haunted attraction. The court ultimately decided that the plaintiff assumed the risk of such an injury by participating in an activity known to be inherently dangerous.

In the case, Griffin v. The Haunted Hotel, Inc., the plaintiff visited the defendant’s haunted attraction with a group of friends. As they group was waiting in line, an announcement was made, warning those before they entered the attraction that, while no one was going to intentionally touch them, they would be chased, scared, and tormented by staff. There was a sign near the entrance warning, “Due to natural surroundings of the park, the ground may be uneven with some obstacles such as tree roots, rocks, etc. Be careful.”

The plaintiff and his friends made it through what they believed to be the entire attraction, and they were waiting in a “well-lit, even surface” when a man with a chainsaw jumped out and began pointing the saw at the plaintiff and his friends. The plaintiff, feeling that the attraction was over and that the man was singling him out, began to back up, away from the employee. The employee was persistent and would not leave the plaintiff alone, and the plaintiff eventually started to run away. As he was running, the plaintiff tripped and fell, injuring his wrist. The plaintiff sued the Haunted Hotel under a premises liability theory.

Family Receives $9.6 Million after Eight-Day Birth Injury Case

November 23, 2015 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Earlier this month, a California family was awarded $9.6 million after an eight-day trial culminating in the judge finding that the doctor was negligent in the delivery of their child. According to one local California news source, the young girl, who is not three years old, will never be able to walk, talk, or care for herself.

Evidently, back in 2012, the family’s doctor was called to the hospital to assist in the delivery of the child. The doctor, who was employed by a federally funded clinic at the time, failed to deliver the child in a timely manner, waiting too long to perform the necessary Cesarean section procedure.

The young girl was born with serious and permanent injuries, including blindness. She will also require the use of a feeding tube for her entire life and suffer from unexpected seizures. The bulk of the $9.6 million award was designated as compensation for the payment of a 24-hour live-in nurse, as well as for the continued medical care that the girl will need throughout the duration of her life.

Court Dismisses Plaintiff’s Case Based on Recreational Use Statute

November 16, 2015 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Earlier this month, an appellate court in Vermont decided a case implicating the state’s recreational use statute. In the case, Symonds v. City of Pawtucket, the plaintiff was the mother of a young girl who was injured while she was playing on a playground on city property. The mother filed a premises liability lawsuit against the City, claiming that the City’s negligent maintenance of the property caused her daughter’s injuries.

The Facts of the Case

According to the court’s written opinion, the girl got a splinter while playing on a wooden jungle gym. The mother testified that the condition of the jungle gym was so poor that it “had deteriorated to the point where the wood was frayed, split, and slivered.” After her daughter’s injury, the plaintiff called the Parks and Recreation Department to file a complaint and let them know of her daughter’s injuries. A short time later, she filed a premises liability lawsuit.

At trial, the City asked that the court dismiss the case based on the state’s recreational use statute. A recreational use statute is a law that grants immunity to property owners who open their land up to the recreational uses of others, when others are injured on their land. There is an exception to the recreational use statute when there is willful or malicious conduct. In such cases, there may no longer be immunity, and liability may arise.

Court Opts Not to Apply Medical Malpractice Requirements in Hospital Slip-and-Fall Case

November 9, 2015 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Earlier this month, the Supreme Court of Texas decided a case that illuminated the intersection between two different areas of personal injury law. Ultimately, the court determined that a slip-and-fall accident that occurs at a hospital does not fall within the hospital’s provision of health care and therefore should not be held to the heightened requirements of a medical malpractice action.

In the case, Reddic v. East Texas Medical Center Regional Health Care System, the plaintiff was a hospital visitor who slipped on a floor mat a few feet after entering the hospital. The plaintiff suffered injuries as a result and sued the hospital under a premises liability theory.

The Case Goes to Trial

At trial, the defendant hospital petitioned the court to dismiss the lawsuit because the plaintiff failed to submit an expert report validating her claims, as is required in medical malpractice cases. The plaintiff’s position was that a slip-and-fall accident taking place in a hospital is not so related to the hospital’s business of providing health care as to mandate the heightened requirements.

Two Killed in Glen Burnie Head-On Collision; Alcohol Suspected To Be a Factor

November 2, 2015 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Late last month on Halloween, two vehicles collided head-on in Glen Burnie, killing both drivers. According to one local news source, the accident occurred on Solley Road near where it meets Chestnut Springs Lane. The fatal accident claimed the lives of both drivers, and the three passengers involved in the accident were also seriously injured.

Evidently, three teenage friends were driving in a Nissan on Solley Road, heading to a Halloween party. At some point, another Nissan approaching in the opposite direction inexplicably crossed over the center line and collided with the Nissan carrying the three teens. After the initial collision, the vehicle that crossed over the center line flipped on its roof and continued to slide down the highway until it collided with a third vehicle.

In the end, both drivers of the Nissan vehicles were dead. Two teenage passengers in one of the vehicles, as well as the woman’s husband in the other Nissan, were all taken to the hospital. Since the accident, all of the injured parties have been released from the hospital.