Maryland Accident Law Blog

Woman Dies in Elevator Malfunction in New York Office Building

December 28, 2011 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

A tragic malfunction in an elevator in Midtown Manhattan has left one woman dead and a city in shock. On the morning of December 14, 2011, 41 year-old Suzanne Hart was entering the elevator on the way to her job at an advertising firm at 285 Madison Avenue. While she had one foot in the elevator, it suddenly lurched upward, dragging her with it. The elevator stopped between the first and second floors, with her trapped between the elevator and the wall. Two other passengers in the elevator were unhurt but trapped there for an hour. Rescuers pronounced Hart dead at the scene, but could not remove her body for several more hours.

No definitive explanation for what happened has appeared yet. Some sort of electrical malfunction may be the most likely culprit, but the incident has had a profound impact on a city dependent on elevators. According to the New York Times, New York City has over 60,000 elevators. There were fifty-three accidents involving elevators last year, but only three were fatal. Hart’s death turned a mundane, everyday activity into something terrifying. Other daily activities, such as driving a car, have known risks and well-publicized dangers, but an elevator ride seems to hold a particular resonance for many people.

The city’s Department of Buildings is conducting an investigation of the incident. The building has remained closed since the day of the accident, but is expected to reopen in January 2012. A spokesperson for the Department said that the accident had raised “structural concerns” for the entire building, an indicator of the force of the elevator’s movement. Transel Elevator, Inc., which services elevators all over the city and acknowledges doing electrical maintenance work on that particular elevator several hours before the accident, is a focus of the investigation. The biggest mystery for investigators, according to CBS News, is why all of the elevator’s safeguards seem to have failed at once. Elevators have safety mechanisms that should prevent them from moving while the doors are open. These mechanisms have several backups, but none of them worked that morning.

Alleged DUI Driver Hits Maryland School Bus

December 20, 2011 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

A pickup truck, whose driver was allegedly driving under the influence, caused an accident with a school bus on the evening of November 22, 2011. Twenty people, including fifteen students from Great Mills High School, were treated at a nearby hospital for injuries. Fortunately, no fatalities or serious injuries were reported. The bus driver sustained back injuries.

At about 9:23 p.m. that night, 45 year-old John Patrick Kravats allegedly ran a stop sign while another car, a Ford Fusion, was in the intersection. Kravats’ truck hit the Fusion, sending it into the school bus’ lane. The school bus, carrying members and coaches of the Great Hills High School Girls’ Basketball team, struck either the pickup truck or the Fusion and went off the road and into the woods. Local news coverage showed the bus wedged between trees in a wooded area just off the road.

Witnesses credited the school bus driver with heroic driving maneuvers that prevented the bus from tipping over and prevented serious injuries. The bus driver, another adult, and fifteen students were taken to the hospital. The driver of the Fusion and a 13 year-old passenger were also taken to the hospital.

Police at the scene arrested Kravats for driving under the influence. Local news discovered that Kravats is listed on the Maryland sex offender registry because of a conviction for sexual abuse of a minor. While this is of little to no relevance in determining Kravats’ liability for the accident, it will not help him in the criminal case for DUI.

Based on news reports of the accident scene, it appears that Kravats’ truck did not directly strike the school bus. The school bus may have hit the truck, and it was the efforts of the school bus driver to avoid tipping over that took the bus off the road and into the woods. A personal injury attorney would therefore need to examine causation, to see if Kravats would be legally liable for injuries to school bus passengers. It seems that he should be liable for injuries in both the Fusion and the school bus.

Maryland Court Strikes Down State Lead Paint Law

December 12, 2011 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Maryland’s Court of Appeals issued a ruling in late October that strikes down a state law shielding rental property owners from liability to their tenants for lead paint exposure if those owners could show they took precautions to protect children from such exposure. The unanimous ruling held that the statute violated the Maryland Constitution by denying victims of lead paint poisoning their day in court. The court left the regulatory portions of the law in place.

Maryland enacted the law in question, the Reduction of Lead Risk in Housing Act, in 1994 as a compromise after lengthy negotiations between public health advocates and property owners. Lead paint poisoning had once been a huge problem for children in Maryland, particularly in Baltimore, but advocates of the law claim the rate of lead poisoning has decreased by 98 percent since the law passed. The law requires owners of rental properties built prior to 1950 to register with the Maryland Department of the Environment and to take steps to remediate lead content in their properties, such as by removing known lead-painted surfaces and removing lead dust. The Department of the Environment states that around 73,000 rental units are registered, nearly all built before 1950. Baltimore banned lead inside homes in 1950, and the rest of the state followed in 1978.

The troublesome portion of the law involves the liability of rental property owners to their tenants when exposure does occur. If a property owner has complied with the regulatory provisions of the law, their liability is limited to $17,000, which might cover the costs of relocating to a lead-free residence but does not compensate for injuries that can last a lifetime. Exposure to lead-based paint can cause severe injuries, including brain damage.

The lawsuit, Jackson v. Dackman Co., et al, sought damages for brain damage allegedly suffered by ZiTashia Jackson when she ingested lead-based paint while residing at two different addresses in Baltimore, both owned by the Dackman Company. According to the complaint, the lease did not note chipping or flaking paint or other similar hazards, but both were rampant in both apartments. The tenants allegedly complained to the landlord, but no repairs occurred. Since the property owners had registered with the state and undertaken remediation efforts, its liability was limited by the statute, cutting off the plaintiffs’ claims for negligence and deceptive trade practices. The defendants obtained summary judgment, the plaintiffs appealed, and the case made its way to the Court of Appeals.

When a “Never Event” Occurs at a Hospital, It Frequently Goes Unreported

December 5, 2011 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Hospitals often refer to tragedies that should not happen in a medical setting as “never events.” These may include patients dying during routine procedures or major medication errors. Saying that they should not happen does not mean that they do not, unfortunately, and few resources are available to track just how frequently “never events” occur.

Any effort to track this type of event is dependent upon reporting by hospitals and other medical providers, who often have both legal and business reasons to prefer not reporting. Hospitals may wish to keep such information private for fear that it could be used against them in litigation. While this may not be an unreasonable worry, it does nothing to alleviate concerns about public safety. Furthermore, any such information that directly pertains to a claim for medical malpractice should be relevant information available through discovery. It turns out that the discovery process may remain the main method for medical malpractice attorneys to obtain information on specific errors.

Hospitals may also cite fear of losing business as a reason to keep “never event” information private, as people would take their business elsewhere, or they might avoid care entirely. The argument that a patient might forgo care rather than risk seems reasonable to an extent, but the interest in having accurate information seems greater.

Finally, patient privacy laws may prevent reporting of specific information on errors. Privacy protections are available, through which hospitals can submit reports with redacted patient information.

Congress passed the Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Act of 2005 (PSQIA) in order to address some of these concerns, but the law does not directly address the issue of public availability of information. The law encourages hospitals to report dangerous conditions, adverse events, and near misses to a system of patient safety organizations (PSO), also created by this law. It also provides for confidentiality of what it defines as “Patient Safety Work Product.” The definition of Patient Safety Work Product is quite broad, encompassing almost all features of an error report, and disclosure is only permitted in strictly-defined circumstances. These circumstances do not seem to include litigation, except after an extensive process of “nonidentification.” The PSQIA also created a national database that allows information to be shared among the PSO’s, obviously subject to the strict disclosure requirements. However, the PSQIA does not require hospitals to report adverse events to the nearest PSO. All reporting under this law is strictly voluntary

Workers Severely Burned in Worksite Accidents

November 30, 2011 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Two recent worksite accidents on November 2, 2011 resulted in serious burn injuries to a welder in one instance and a laundry worker in the other. At a granite quarry operated by Vulcan Materials in Kennesaw, Georgia, a welder was shocked by a high-voltage power line, receiving critical, but not life-threatening, burns. He was using a bucket truck to lift materials when the truck boom made contact with a 4,160-volt power line. Another man was apparently trapped on the crane during the incident, but was not injured. The burn victim was taken to an Augusta hospital’s burn center for treatment. The company that operates the power lines, along with the federal Mine Safety and Health Administration, is reportedly investigating the incident.

A laundry worker at a commercial laundry plant near Rome in northwest Georgia was severely burned in a steam pipe explosion. A pipe allegedly ruptured in the early evening, with sufficient force to blow out a wall nearby. Only two employees and one contractor were present in the plant at the time, according to news reports, and only one injury was reported. The Rome Fire Department and Floyd County EMS responded to the incident, and the Rome Fire Marshal is reportedly conducting an investigation.

Fortunately, no one was killed in either incident. Cases such as these demonstrate the risks present at construction and industrial worksites and the difficulty in determining liability for individual injuries. The workers’ compensation system provides a mechanism for workers injured on the job to recover damages from their employers. The system has many legal restrictions, and the process of making and recovering on a claim can be cumbersome and time-consuming. Workers’ compensation is also generally only available in situations where a worker can make a claim directly against an employer. Worksites often involve multiple contractors ands employers with a tangled web of relationships.

Lawsuits Seek to Hold Maryland Company Liable for Death at West Virginia Festival

November 17, 2011 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

After a summer music festival in West Virginia turned tragic, a South Carolina man filed a lawsuit in federal court against the festival’s organizer, Maryland-based Walther Productions, and others. The man’s daughter, 20 year-old Nicole Miller, was killed while sleeping in a tent at the festival when a pickup truck rolled down a steep hill and crashed into her tent. Two friends with her suffered serious injuries. The two survivors, Yon Ten and Elizabeth Doran, each filed very similar lawsuits.

The lawsuit filed by Miller’s father names twelve defendants, including Walther, Virginia-based security provider Event Staffing, Inc., the owners of the festival venue, and the driver of the pickup truck. The suits claim that the defendants were negligent in failing to take “reasonable care” to prevent the accident that caused Miller’s death and Ten’s and Doran’s injuries. Miller’s suit also requests punitive damages.

The accident happened at the All Good Music Festival in Masontown, West Virginia on July 17, 2011. The driver of the pickup truck had parked at the top of a hill and allegedly lost control of the vehicle, causing it to roll down the hill and into a campsite. Conditions at the festival were allegedly muddy, and the plaintiffs contend that festival organizers and vendors knew or should have known of the danger of parking vehicles uphill from concert attendees because of the lack of traction in the mud.

Walther filed a response last week denying liability, as well as a cross-claim against several co-defendants. Walther asks to be dismissed from the lawsuit and argues that Event Staffing should be held liable for the accident, as it had direct responsibility for controlling dangerous situations, including parking. Event Staffing also asks for dismissal, and argues that Walther should contribute to any damage awards the court may impose on it. Other defendants have not yet answered the suit.

Maryland Teen Burned by Paint Can Thrown into Campfire

November 10, 2011 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

A can of spray paint allegedly thrown into a campfire has led to burn injuries for a Maryland teen and reckless endangerment charges for two minors accused of throwing the can. The Maryland State Fire Marshal’s office reports that, on the night of Tuesday, October 25, two male minors tossed the can into a campfire in a wooded area of Bel Air. This caused the can to explode. A 13 year-old female standing near the fire allegedly suffered first-degree burns to both of her hands and first- and second-degree burns to her face.

The victim’s mother took the girl to the hospital for treatment and reported the incident to police on Wednesday. The girl should recover fully, according to news reports. Police charged the two boys with reckless endangerment, defined in Maryland law as “conduct that creates a substantial risk of death or serious physical injury to another.” This offense, a misdemeanor, normally carries a penalty of up to five years’ imprisonment and a fine of up to $5,000, but in this case the defendants are minors. The criminal statute uses the mental state of “recklessness,” meaning that the prosecution would have to prove that the boys acted without regard to a known risk, in this case the risk of an exploding paint can.

From the point of view of a personal injury attorney, the question becomes one of negligence or intent. While reports of the incident give no indication of any civil claim relating to the injuries, the case offers a good thought experiment on how a claim for damages can develop. In this case, the injured girl could make a claim for negligence or for an intentional tort such as battery, depending on the circumstances. “Battery” as a civil claim is an intentional action that results in contact with another person without that person’s consent. It could be direct person-to-person contact, as in a punch, or contact through another object, such as a paint can. A claim for battery would require proof that the boys intended to throw the paint can into the fire and intended for it to affect the girl, although they do not necessarily need to have intended her specific injuries. To claim negligence, she would need to prove that the boys breached a duty of care, such as to not create explosions, and that this breach caused her injury. In either case, the extent of her injuries would determine the amount of damages she could claim.

Outsourcing of Radiology Raises Concerns About Quality of Care

November 3, 2011 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

The word “x-ray” may still conjure images of doctors standing before backlit panels reviewing transparent x-ray scans and arguing over diagnoses. This bears little resemblance to the reality of modern x-rays. In a practice known as teleradiology, doctors and hospitals outsource x-rays and similar procedures to companies who may be located on the other side of town or the other side of the world. Doctors and technicians employed by these companies review the x-rays and issue a report. This practice, while perhaps increasing efficiency, also increases risks of misdiagnosis or even simple miscommunication, with potentially serious consequences.

A recent article published by MSNBC tells the story of a Pennsylvania woman who went to the hospital on a Friday night in 2005 complaining of a severe headache. The emergency room doctor thought it might be a cerebral hemorrhage, a potentially fatal condition, so he ordered a CT scan. The hospital electronically sent the CT scan data to a radiologist located across the state. The radiologist diagnosed a possible tumor rather than a hemorrhage. Since a tumor was not immediately life-threatening, the hospital sent her home with painkillers.

The woman returned to the hospital by ambulance about seven hours later, in even worse pain. The ER doctor ordered a more detailed CT scan, which was sent to a different radiologist. While the radiologist had a Pennsylvania medical license, his office was in Hong Kong. The radiologist identified an abscess around the mass in the woman’s brain, a condition that is very frequently fatal if not caught in time. The radiologist did not note the significance of his finding, i.e. its likelihood to be fatal, in his report to the hospital. Another radiologist at the Pennsylvania company also noted the abscess but did not report its significance.

The woman went home again, and later collapsed when the abscess ruptured. She spent eleven weeks in a coma while doctors tried to drain the fluids from her brain. She survived with permanent brain damage affecting memory and daily functions. The hospital settled a lawsuit with her family for a confidential amount.

Reliability of Federal Product Safety Database Questioned in Lawsuit

October 27, 2011 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

A lawsuit filed by an anonymous “Company Doe” seeks to block “baseless allegations” on a new website that allows consumers to post information on hazardous products. The website, SaferProducts.gov, represents an effort to “crowdsource” reporting of dangerous and defective products in the marketplace. The Consumer Products Safety Commission (CPSC) created the site and lunched it about six months ago. The lawsuit brings to light concerns raised by business groups that the website creates the potential for consumers to defame companies by posting false, misleading, or inaccurate information. One side of this dispute involves the right of manufacturers to do business without false disparagement. On the other side is the public’s interest in freely available information on hazardous products.

The CPSC is an independent agency of the federal government with a mandate to protect the public “against unreasonable risks of injuries associated with consumer products.” It regulates over 15,000 different consumer products by investigating claims of faulty, defective, or hazardous products. It can then issue recalls of products already released into the market or ban products yet to be released. In addition to SaferProducts.gov, the agency operates the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System (NEISS) which collects data on injuries caused by dangerous products from emergency rooms. Congress passed the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act in 2008, which authorized the creation of a public database to collect information on product concerns.

In its first four months, according to the Government Accountability Office, the website received 5,464 consumer complaints. Of those, the CPSC found 383 of them to be “materially inaccurate.” In 204 of those reports, consumers had incorrectly identified the manufacturers of the allegedly hazardous products. The total number of reports received, while possibly low because of lack of widespread knowledge of the system yet, may be considerably lower than the number of reports received by the CPSC through its other programs. Annually, it collects over 360,000 reports through NEISS, 23,000 reports directly from manufacturers, and around 15,000 reports through the agency’s website and hotline.

SaferProducts.gov is the first service that gives members of the public the opportunity to directly report problems, and to access information reported by others. The CPSC clearly disclaims that it “does not guarantee the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the contents” of the website’s database. This potentially presents a problem both for manufacturers who may find themselves unfairly maligned, and for a public needing accurate and up-to-date information on hazardous products.

Family Files Wrongful Death Lawsuit Against California School Over Death of 12 Year-Old

October 19, 2011 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

The parents of a 12 year-old boy who died in September 2010 from acute cardiac arrest have filed suit against the school district where the child was enrolled, the child’s P.E. teacher, and two doctors who treated him. The lawsuit alleges negligence against the school district and teacher for failing to exercise reasonable care in the child’s physical education, and it alleges that the doctors were negligent in their prescribed restrictions on the child’s physical activities.

The child suffered from hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, a condition that causes thickening of the heart muscle, according to court documents. This makes it more difficult for the heart to pump blood efficiently. The congenital condition can result in sudden cardiac arrest and death, and is a leading cause of heart-related death among young athletes. The lawsuit alleges that, while temperatures in Los Angeles were at a record high of 107 degrees in September 2010, the school and P.E. teacher required the child to participate in physical education classes. The school and teacher allegedly knew about the child’s heart condition. The child allegedly suffered cardiac arrest on the morning of September 28, 2010 during his physical education, while under the teacher’s supervision. He died shortly afterwards.

The primary claim of the lawsuit is negligence. To prevail on a claim of negligence, a plaintiff must prove four elements: (1) the defendant owed a duty of care, (2) the defendant breached that duty, (3) the breach caused injury to the plaintiff, and (4) plaintiff has suffered damages as a direct result. The plaintiffs have also claimed negligence by medical professionals, which is a higher standard of negligence. Ordinarily, a negligence claim requires proof of a duty of care for a reasonable person. Medical malpractice imposes a higher standard of care on doctors and other medical professionals because of their specialized training. Since the school district and teacher named in the lawsuit care for children in the course of their daily professional duties, a court might apply a higher standard of care to them than it might to a person not accustomed to dealing with children. The lawsuit specifically alleges failure to follow the requirements of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which addresses protection of children with disabilities.