Articles Posted in Relevant Personal Injury Case Law

Earlier this month, a state appellate court issued a written opinion in a car accident case in which the plaintiff’s vehicle was struck by a drunk driver. The case required the court to determine if the defendant’s prior convictions for driving under the influence could be admitted at trial. Ultimately, the court concluded that the prior convictions were relevant to the punitive damages determination and thus should be admitted for that limited purpose.

HandcuffedThe Facts of the Case

The plaintiff was driving to work on the highway when suddenly, the defendant’s vehicle crossed over into the plaintiff’s lane of traffic. The two vehicles collided head-on. It was later determined that the defendant had a blood-alcohol content of .18, which is over twice the legal limit.

The plaintiff filed a personal injury lawsuit against the defendant. During the plaintiff’s case, he attempted to introduce evidence that the defendant had been convicted of driving under the influence on two prior occasions, once in 1996 and another time in 1983. The court allowed the evidence to be admitted over the defendant’s objection. Ultimately, the jury awarded the plaintiff over $1,500,000.

Continue Reading

When a party files a personal injury case against a defendant, the defendant has the opportunity to argue one or more defenses in hopes of escaping liability. In some cases, the ultimate determination comes down to which witness is more believable. However, in other cases, the facts are not necessarily contested, and the parties argue whether a legal defense applies.

FiremenOne common defense in Maryland personal injury cases is “assumption of the risk.” The doctrine of assumption of the risk stands for the proposition that a person cannot seek to hold another party liable for injuries they sustained while engaging in an activity that they knew was risky. A recent case brought by a firefighter illustrates this principle.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff was a firefighter who was called to assist in the efforts to put out a wildfire that had gotten out of control. The firefighters set up a headquarters inside the center of an oval racetrack and set up camp outside the track. However, by the time the plaintiff arrived, all of the camp spots had been taken. She then sought permission to camp inside the track. She was given permission and spent the first night there without a problem.

Continue Reading

Last month, a Georgia appellate court issued a written opinion in a personal injury case arising out of a car accident between the plaintiff and a government employee. Since the case was filed against a government entity, the plaintiff had to comply with certain additional requirements. One of the requirements was that the plaintiff specify the exact amount of damages sought. Ultimately, the court affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiff’s case because, rather than specify the exact amount of damages, she sought “the full amount of damages allowed by law.”

PaperworkThe Facts of the Case

The plaintiff was involved in a car accident with an employee of the Georgia Department of Transportation. Under the theory of vicarious liability, the plaintiff filed a personal injury lawsuit against the Department, seeking compensation for the injuries she sustained in the accident. In her complaint, the plaintiff listed the damages sought as the “full amount of damages allowed by law.” Under the applicable statute, that was $1 million.

In Georgia, as well as in Maryland and many other states, lawsuits filed against a government entity must comply with certain additional requirements. Specifically, the law requires that a plaintiff naming a government entity as a defendant specify the amount of damages sought. If a plaintiff fails to comply with this or any other procedural requirement, the government defendant may be successful in asking the court to dismiss the case.

Continue Reading

In personal injury trials, the judge acts as the gatekeeper to determine which evidence the jury should hear. In making these evidentiary decisions, the judge must apply the appropriate rule of evidence. While the rules of evidence present a good guideline to assist a judge in making these decisions, issues often arise in a legal “gray area,” requiring the judge to apply the law to the facts of the case and come up with a reasoned decision.

Cracked PavementMaryland Rule of Evidence 5-407 deals with subsequent remedial measures. A subsequent remedial measure is an action taken after an injury occurred, usually by a defendant, to remedy the hazard that allegedly caused the plaintiff’s injury. Generally speaking, evidence that a party took remedial action after an injury occurred cannot be used against that party. This encourages defendants who are facing allegations of negligence to fix potential hazards without fear of conceding liability in the pending lawsuit.

With that said, Rule 5-407 contains several exceptions. One exception is that evidence of a subsequent remedial measure may be introduced for purposes other than to show liability. A recent case illustrates how one plaintiff was able to introduce evidence of a subsequent remedial measure.

Continue Reading

Earlier this month, an appellate court in Georgia issued a written opinion in a premises liability case brought by a woman who was injured when she slipped and fell after stepping in a puddle on a train platform. The appellate court ultimately affirmed the lower court’s granting of summary judgment in favor of the defendant, finding that the accumulated rainwater was not a dangerous condition as defined under the law.

Train PlatformThe Facts of the Case

According to the court’s opinion, the plaintiff was attempting to catch a train that was operated by the defendant transportation agency. As the plaintiff approached the train, she walked on a covered concrete platform. Since it had been raining earlier that day, there was a puddle near the door to the platform.

The plaintiff told the court that she saw the puddle but did not think it would be slippery. However, as she stepped in it, she slipped and fell. The plaintiff was injured as a result and filed a premises liability lawsuit against the transportation agency, claiming that it was negligent in allowing the puddle of water to form.

Continue Reading

Being involved in a serious accident is a traumatic experience. Often, along with the weeks or months of physical recovery, there is a lengthy emotional recovery process as well. Many times, people may suffer from nervous episodes or may refrain from engaging in certain activities. These are understandable side effects of being involved in a serious accident.

Wet Floor SignThe law in Maryland allows for those who have been injured in a serious accident to file a personal injury lawsuit to seek financial compensation for all that they have been through. While each case is different, compensation packages may include amounts for past medical bills, future medical expenses, lost wages due to time away from work, and any pain and suffering that the accident victim endured as a result of the accident.

Unfortunately, however, the process of filing a personal injury claim can be a lengthy one as well. Thus, it is very important that an accident victim do everything possible to ensure a smooth process to reduce the risk of additional delays. A recent case illustrates how one plaintiff’s failure to name the correct defendant ended up delaying the case for months, possibly years.

Continue Reading

Earlier this month, an appellate court in Georgia issued a written opinion in a medical malpractice lawsuit, affirming the dismissal of the plaintiff’s claims based on the plaintiff’s failure to establish that the defendants’ allegedly negligent actions caused the plaintiff’s injuries. Specifically, the court held that since the medical experts called by the plaintiff could not testify to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, their opinion failed to establish causation.

Operating RoomThe Facts of the Case

The defendant was scheduled to have a robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP), which was to be performed by the defendants. On the day of the surgery, the plaintiff was positioned with his hands placed behind his back. During the surgery, none of the defendants repositioned the plaintiff’s body, and the surgery was completed after about 9.5 hours.

After the surgery, the plaintiff complained of pain in both of his shoulders and arms. He was later diagnosed with compartment syndrome in his right arm. A subsequent surgery was performed to relieve the pressure, but the plaintiff never regained the full use of his right arm.

Continue Reading

Earlier this month, an appellate court in Georgia issued a written opinion in a premises liability case that was brought by a woman who slipped and fell on a “corn hole” game board as she was talking to a sales associate in a car dealership’s showroom. The court ultimately determined that because the evidence presented showed the plaintiff had successfully negotiated her way around the board several time before, and because it was open and obvious, the defendant was entitled to summary judgment.

Banana PeelThe Facts of the Case

The plaintiff went with a friend to the defendant’s car dealership to look at the selection of available pick-up trucks. Upon arrival, the plaintiff saw a sales associate in an office across the show room. She crossed the show room, passing a four-foot-long board that was part of a corn hole game. The plaintiff and her friend spoke to the associate, and then made their way out into the lot. A short time later the two came back into the show room and went back to the sales associate’s office, again making their way past the corn hole board.

The plaintiff and her friend had a brief conversation with the associate before leaving his office. On her way out of the associate’s office, he stopped her to ask her a question. She briefly responded and then continued her exit. However, as she did, she tripped and fell on the board, injuring her knee. The plaintiff then filed a premises liability lawsuit against the car dealership, claiming that it was negligent in the placement of the game board.

Continue Reading

Earlier this month, an appellate court in Oklahoma issued a written opinion in a car accident case brought by a passenger who was involved in an accident against the driver’s insurance company. Specifically, the court had to determine if the lower court was proper in granting the defendant’s motions for summary judgment based on the fact that it did not act in bad faith when it questioned the reasonableness of the medical care the plaintiff received.

PaperworkThe Facts of the Case

The plaintiff was injured in a car accident while a passenger in her mother’s car. According to the facts as described in the appellate opinion, a driver ran through a stop sign and struck the plaintiff’s mother’s vehicle. After the accident, the plaintiff was taken to the hospital. She was initially taken to the emergency room, and then was transferred to the “L2 trauma center.” She was discharged four hours later with a cervical collar, but was not provided a prescription for pain medication. The plaintiff continued to receive outpatient treatment for her injuries.

The plaintiff later filed a claim under the uninsured/underinsured motorist provision of her mother’s insurance policy. She requested a total of roughly $67,000. Of that sum, $24,420 was incurred from the treatment that the plaintiff received at the L2 trauma center. The insurance company denied coverage for any charges arising from treatment in the L2 trauma center, claiming that such treatment was unnecessary. In support of its position, the insurance company consulted with an expert who stated that the plaintiff did not need to be transferred to the L2 trauma center.

Continue Reading

Earlier this month, a jury awarded a Georgia doctor $7 million in a premises liability lawsuit brought against the hospital where the doctor sustained a career-ending head injury after falling to the ground after slipping off a rolling stool. According to one local news report covering the case, the doctor alleged that the hospital provided an unsafe rolling stool in the operating room where the fall occurred.

Operating RoomThe Facts of the Case

The plaintiff was a doctor who had performed thousands of surgeries at the defendant hospital. On the day of the accident, the plaintiff had just finished with a surgery and sat down to complete the post-op paperwork. However, as he sat on the rolling stool provided by the hospital, the stool shot out from under him, causing him to fall to the floor.

The doctor hit his head on the floor but initially seemed fine. It was not until hours later that he started to become nauseous and then started experiencing double vision. Later, he began to have seizures. He was hospitalized for several days and eventually tried to return to work. However, since he was routinely suffering from seizures, he had to close down his practice. The doctor was later diagnosed with trauma-induced epilepsy and continues to suffer from cognitive and memory problems, migraine headaches, and seizures.

Continue Reading

Contact Information