Maryland Accident Law Blog

Third-Party Construction Site Accident Claims in Maryland

June 24, 2021 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Construction is one of the most dangerous industries in the United States, and Maryland construction site accidents result in thousands of serious injuries and fatalities every year. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) provides safety practices and regulations to mitigate the danger in these workplaces. These regulations provide mandatory training, supervising, and inspections of workplaces. Despite the rigorous training many employers and employees must complete every year, accidents continue to rise.

These accidents can result in serious injuries related to traumatic brain injuries, spinal cord damage, broken bones, lacerations, electrocution, paralysis, and more. Treatment and rehabilitation for these conditions often far exceed the amount that health insurance and workers’ compensation covers. Further, the law bars many employees from filing lawsuits against their employers. As such, it is essential that injury victims and their families understand all potential defendants in these cases.

These claims typically fall under the purview of third-party claims. Third-party claims work to bridge the gap between what an employee’s workers’ compensation claim pays out and the residual damages they incurred. These claims are appropriate when a non-employer third party was at fault or partially at fault for the accident and resulting injuries.

Proving a Maryland Accident Case Through Circumstantial Evidence

June 17, 2021 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Many Maryland accident victims do not have direct evidence of a defendant’s negligence. That is, the plaintiff does not have direct proof of the cause of the accident. In these cases, accident victims must prove the case through circumstantial evidence of the defendant’s fault, relying on inferences of the defendant’s fault.

How Does a Maryland Accident Victim Prove a Personal Injury Claim?

In a Maryland negligence claim, a plaintiff must generally show that the defendant had a duty to protect the plaintiff from injury, the defendant breached that duty, the plaintiff suffered an injury or loss, and the loss or injury was proximately caused by the defendant’s breach of its duty. Proof of causation may rest on direct evidence, circumstantial evidence, or a combination of the two. A negligence claim can rest solely on circumstantial evidence. However, the circumstantial evidence must create “a reasonable likelihood or probability rather than a possibility” that supports a “rational basis of causation” and cannot be based solely on speculation.

In a recent case before a state appeals court, the court considered whether there was sufficient evidence of causation in a case that rested on circumstantial evidence. In that case, the plaintiff went to a medical center to visit a patient. As she was walking to the patient’s room, the plaintiff slipped and fell in front of a utility-room door and fractured her kneecap. She alleged that the floor was wet and sued the Medical Center for negligence. The case went to trial, and a jury found in the plaintiff’s favor and awarded her more than a million dollars. The defendant appeal, arguing in part that there was insufficient evidence of a wet floor or that the medical center knew of a wet substance on the floor.

$25 Million Award Upheld in Roundup Weed Killer Lawsuit – A Big Decision for Maryland Roundup Users

May 31, 2021 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Roundup weedkiller has been used for years as a pesticide. The pesticide, manufactured by Monsanto, uses the active ingredient glyphosate, which many claim causes cancer. In a recent decision that has implications for Maryland injury victims and Roundup users, a federal appeals court upheld a jury verdict finding that Roundup caused the plaintiff’s cancer.

The plaintiff in the case used Roundup for years on his land in California and alleged that his use of Roundup caused his non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. The trial was held in 2019 and the jury awarded the plaintiff over $5 million in compensatory damages and $75 million in punitive damages. The court subsequently reduced the punitive damages award to $20 million. Two similar cases were heard in 2018 and 2019 and the juries also found in favor of the plaintiffs, awarding them millions of dollars.

On appeal, Monsanto argued in part that it did not know and could not have known that glyphosate caused cancer in 2012 when the plaintiff stopped using Roundup. However, the appeals court found there was sufficient evidence supporting a link between glyphosate and cancer that it could have known the information in 2012. For example, in 1985, the EPA found glyphosate was a possible human carcinogen. Although it changed its designation to “non-carcinogenic” in 1991, there were various studies that linked glyphosate and cancer during the 1990s. Monsanto later hired a genotoxicologist who found evidence that glyphosate might be genotoxic and recommended that Monsanto conduct tests on Roundup’s genotoxicity. Other studies that linked glyphosate and cancer were also released by 2012. Thus, there was sufficient evidence that the link between glyphosate and cancer was “knowable” by 2012.

Maryland Hospital Liability for Visitor’s Injuries

May 22, 2021 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Health care facilities, such as hospitals, rehabilitation centers, and outpatient treatment facilities owe a duty of care to their patients and visitors. The duty of care is a facet of the facility’s obligation to prevent hazards and unreasonable risk of harm to those on their property. Hospital injury cases tend to fall under Maryland medical malpractice or premises liability laws. In contrast, hospital visitor injury claims are a bit more convoluted but generally fall under premises liability theories of negligence.

Maryland premises liability claims may apply in cases when a person suffers injuries because of a dangerous condition at another’s public or private property. The law provides property owners and occupiers to keep their land or business reasonably safe for individuals they can reasonably expect will enter their property. Challenges often arise when the property owner asserts that they did not owe a duty to the injury victim, based on their visitor status.

What Are the Classifications of Visitors Under Maryland Premises Liability Law?

There are four types of visitor classifications for Maryland premises liability purposes. These classifications include invitees, licensee by invitation, bare licensee, and trespassers. Invitees are usually business guests or customers. Property owners have the duty to keep the property safe by engaging in inspections, protecting the visitor from foreseeable dangers, and warning them of any potentially dangerous conditions. Licensee by invitation is social guests, such as a guest at a party. In these cases, even though they are invited, a property owner must only warn the licensee of dangerous conditions the owner knows about, but they don’t need to inspect the property. Bare licensees are those who enter another’s property with consent and knowledge, but for the visitor’s purpose or interest. This may include solicitors or possibly hospital visitors. In these cases, the property owner must refrain from purposefully injuring the bare licensee or creating new dangers without warning. Finally, trespassers are those that enter another’s a property without permission. In these cases, the owner must only refrain from intentionally hurting the individual.

Recovering Through a Maryland Products Liability Claim

May 14, 2021 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

When we buy products from the store, we expect them to be safe. Some products, however, are defective and can injure consumers. Sometimes, products are defectively designed. Other times, the design is safe, but a mistake was made during manufacturing that made the product dangerous. When these issues arise and injure people, those who are responsible can be held accountable.

In a recent state Supreme Court decision, the court considered a defective design products liability claim. An electric terminal manufacturer produced two functionally identical products for the same cost for over a decade, but the older of the two designs were more susceptible to failure. When a corporate affiliate of the manufacturer chose to use the older version when manufacturing new air conditioning products, a technician experienced severe burns when the product ignited and overheated. A jury concluded that the older design was unreasonably dangerous, and the failure of the manufacturer to warn of this hazard caused the technician’s injury. The manufacturer appealed.

On appeal, the state Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s decision and held that the jury’s finding of a design defect did not result in an improper verdict. To find that a defective design caused an individual’s injuries, a plaintiff must prove that (1) the product was defectively designed and unreasonably dangerous, (2) a safer alternative existed, and (3) the defect was the cause of the injury. Because the jury found that the product was unreasonably dangerous and caused the technician’s injuries and that the manufacturer failed to adequately provide warnings about potential hazards, the Supreme Court affirmed. In addition, since there was another product that was functionally identical but less susceptible to failure, all three factors were met.

Proof of Loss in Maryland Wrongful Death Cases

May 6, 2021 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

In Maryland, the Court of Appeals recently granted certiorari to determine what a plaintiff must prove in a Maryland wrongful death case to recover economic damages. The case arose after the plaintiff’s daughter died after receiving medical treatment from the defendant. A jury awarded the plaintiffs $1,000,000, which included $500,000 in non-economic damages and $500,000 in economic damages. The Court of Special Appeals vacated the economic damages award, and the woman appealed.

What Must a Family Prove in a Maryland Wrongful Death Lawsuit?

Under Maryland’s Wrongful Death Act, a parent may recover economic damages for the loss of household services rendered by a deceased adult child. According to the appellate court, beneficiaries must meet a three-prong test to establish their right to economic damages arising from the loss of household services. Under the test, the beneficiary must:

Identify the market value of the domestic services,

Maryland Amusement Park Accident Lawsuits

April 27, 2021 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

As normalcy is on the horizon and the weather continues to change, it is understandable that parents and children are eager to visit the various amusement parks that Maryland offers. However, as enjoyable as these places are, they often pose significant dangers to visitors. Those who suffered injuries at a Maryland amusement park should contact an attorney to discuss their rights and remedies.

What Are the Causes of Amusement Park Injuries?

Amusement park injuries can stem from mechanical failures, improper inspection, passenger negligence, the inherent nature of an attraction, and freak accidents. These incidents can result in serious spinal cord injuries, traumatic brain injury, stroke, brain aneurysms, broken bones, organ damage, drowning, and death. In some cases, especially those involving mechanical failure to improper inspection, recovery seems straightforward. However, Maryland amusement park injury lawsuits typically involve complex tort and contract laws that may pose significant challenges to injury victims.

Tragic Maryland Car Accident Leaves Three Dead

April 20, 2021 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

As the world opens back up again, many are considering taking road trips or traveling as the weather improves and things appear safer. With more people on the road, however, this can also mean an increased risk of a Maryland car accident. Sometimes, no matter how much caution we exercise while driving, accidents still happen because of external factors out of our control such as other drivers, weather conditions, or visibility.

According to a recent news report, a tragic Maryland crash left three individuals dead. Local authorities reported that a Ford van with seven people, including the driver, was driving back home to Maryland from Orlando where they had just wrapped up vacationing with family and friends. While traveling northbound, the driver of the van veered into the shoulder of the road, over-corrected, and then flipped the vehicle several times. The roof of the van tore open and ejected multiple passengers, including a three-year-old. She was airlifted to a local hospital and survived the crash but has broken arms and a fractured neck. Following the accident, two young children who were sisters and a family friend in the vehicle were pronounced dead at the scene. According to officials investigating the crash, the stretch of road that the van was driving on is particularly dark because there are no lights that illuminate the road at night—so visibility was likely low when the crash took place.

How Long Do You Have to File a Maryland Wrongful Death Lawsuit?

Following a major car accident, you may feel at a loss as to what to do next. If you wish to recover from your injuries, however, time is of the essence and filing your claim as soon as possible is in your best interest. In Maryland, a statute of limitations for auto accident claims involving negligence is three years. This means that your lawsuit must be filed within three years of the date that the accident took place or you will be barred from bringing a claim in the future. Thus, potential plaintiffs following a car accident involving significant injuries or even death are advised to contact an experienced attorney who can help you navigate these claims

Fatal Maryland Car Accident Kills Two

April 13, 2021 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Tragedy struck earlier this month in Bowie when two people were tragically killed in a Maryland car accident. According to a local news story covering the incident, the two-car crash occurred around 10:30 PM one night on U.S. Route 301. According to officials, a 2014 Honda CR-V, driven by a 70-year-old woman, was heading south on the route when it collided with a 2006 Toyota Scion, driven by a 68-year-old man, near Harbour Way. Tragically, the driver of the Toyota died on the scene. The driver of the Honda was transported to the University of Maryland Prince George’s Hospital Center, where she passed soon after. The accident is still under investigation, as its cause is currently unknown.

The victims’ communities are heartbroken at their passing. The 70-year-old woman, from Washington, D.C., was the president of the Washington Teachers’ Union, deeply committed to social justice and ensuring a quality education for all students. The 68-year-old man was a renowned local musician who also taught music classes and was beloved by his students. Both deaths had a huge impact on the communities, which are still grieving.

One of the things that makes this tragedy worse is the lack of answers—and closure—for the victims’ family and friends. Fatal Maryland car accidents are always upsetting, but they can be particularly difficult when the victim’s loved ones do not know what happened and what caused the accident. Was someone at fault? Was it caused by a negligent driving mistake or some other condition? A deer or debris in the road? A third vehicle that then drove away? The lack of clarity in the aftermath can make the normal grieving process all the more difficult, and Maryland families sometimes may have no clue how to proceed or move on with their lives.

Maryland Women May Suffer Serious Injuries from Paragard IUDs

April 6, 2021 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

When looking at the various forms of contraceptive care available, some women choose the Paragard intrauterine device (IUD), a copper device inserted into the uterus to prevent pregnancy for up to ten years. The makers of the IUD claim that it is safe and effective, and many women who have one inserted experience no complications. But dozens of lawsuits claim that there are problems with the device, particularly in regard to its removal. It is important for women to know that, if they are injured due to a defect in their Paragard IUD, they may be able to recover financially against the developer or manufacturer of the product in a Maryland product liability lawsuit.

Is There a Paraguard Lawsuit?

Many lawsuits have already been filed, and in December of last year, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated them into the Northern District of Georgia. As of February of this year, over 120 lawsuits are pending. These lawsuits make clear that some women have experienced significant injuries from Paragard, specifically when they went to have it removed. Lawyers claim that Paragard’s design is defective and that the device has a tendency to break upon removal. As a result, pieces of the device can go missing inside the uterus, or get lodged into an organ. Some women have experienced allergic reactions to the pieces left in the body, inflammation in the area, or infections. Others have experienced perforation of organs, including the uterus and cervix, and a loss of fertility. Some women even require surgery to remove broken pieces.