Articles Posted in Relevant Personal Injury Case Law

All Maryland landowners owe a duty to those whom they invite onto their property. The extent of the duty owed to guests depends on the relationship between the parties. Maryland business owners owe the highest duty to their customers and other visitors who are on their property to conduct business. If a company fails to provide for the safety of its customers, it may be held liable for any injuries through a Maryland premises liability lawsuit. A recent state appellate decision discusses the duty business owners owe to their customers.

The case arose when the plaintiff was injured while shopping for a gift at a large exposition center. Evidently, the center required shoppers obtain a security badge and go through a security gate before entering. The plaintiff and her husband were issued a security badge and were approaching the security gate when the plaintiff tripped and fell on a rubber mat that was underneath the security desk. The plaintiff later testified that she did not see the mat before her fall.

A security guard that worked for a company that was hired to provide security services for the expo center was sitting at the desk when the plaintiff fell. The guard testified that she saw the plaintiff approach with a limp, but did not see her fall. Photographs taken shortly after the plaintiff’s fall showed that the rubber mat was slightly curled up at the edges.

When an accident victim files a Maryland personal injury case, the plaintiff must present some evidence of the injuries they sustained to satisfy the “damages” element of their claim. If a plaintiff cannot prove that they sustained damages, the court will dismiss the plaintiff’s claim, even if the defendant admits that they were negligent in causing the accident.

Typically, a plaintiff will present evidence from either a treating physician or a physician who was seen for the specific purpose of obtaining a medical opinion for the case. Of course, the defendant may be skeptical about the plaintiff’s claimed injuries, and they may seek to obtain an independent medical examination (IME) of the plaintiff. Like it or not, if the court orders an IME, a plaintiff must attend and cooperate with the examination. A recent case illustrates the consequences a plaintiff may face if he or she fails to cooperate with a court-ordered IME.

According to the court’s opinion, the plaintiff, a railroad worker, was injured when he slipped after stepping in a puddle of oil. The plaintiff filed a personal injury lawsuit against his employer under the Federal Employer’s Liability Act and was deposed shortly afterward. The defendant requested an IME, which the plaintiff contested, arguing that it was scheduled too far from his home. The court ordered the plaintiff to attend the IME, but it required the defendant to pay for the plaintiff’s mileage.

Maryland is known to have some of the harshest laws when it comes to determining which accident victims are able to recover for their injuries. Under Maryland’s contributory negligence rule, plaintiffs who are found to have even the slightest role in causing an accident or bringing about their own injuries are completely precluded from recovering for their injuries. That being said, there are some situations where Maryland law protects an accident victim’s ability to recover for their injuries.

One of the situations where an accident victim’s “negligence” cannot be used to defeat their claim against a defendant is when, at the time of the injury, the plaintiff was not wearing safety equipment that could potentially have reduced the plaintiff’s injuries. For example, a defendant may attempt to argue that a plaintiff’s failure to wear a motorcycle helmet or seat belt in a Maryland traffic accident was evidence of the plaintiff’s negligence. However, in these circumstances, Maryland courts have held this evidence is inadmissible. A recent state appellate decision helps explain the rationale behind this rule.

In that case, the plaintiff was helping the defendant cut down some trees on the defendant’s property. The agreement between the two men was that the plaintiff would use a chain saw to cut the trees and the defendant would watch out for any potential hazards. However, as the plaintiff was using the chainsaw to take down a tree, a dead limb came loose and fell on his head, resulting in serious injuries.

Each year, thousands of employees are injured in Maryland workplace accidents. While a Maryland workers’ compensation claim may be an injured worker’s sole remedy in some cases, that is not the case when a non-employer third party is responsible for the worker’s injuries. Thus, being able to identify a third party who was responsible for a worker’s injuries may allow an injured worker to pursue a Maryland personal injury case in addition to a workers’ compensation claim.

Product liability claims are common in Maryland third-party workplace accident cases because the dangerous or defective nature of a product rarely implicates an employer’s negligence. A recent case illustrates the type of situation in which an employee may be able to pursue a product liability claim after being injured on the job.

According to the court’s opinion, the plaintiff was performing electrical work on a construction site while standing atop a 12-foot ladder. As the plaintiff was working, an air conditioning unit that was anchored into the concrete ceiling came loose, striking the plaintiff. The plaintiff fell off the ladder, landing on the ground. As a result of the fall, the plaintiff sustained serious injuries.

As summer approaches, those who have swimming pools on their property will soon be getting the pool ready for the hot Maryland summer. While swimming is an important skill for children to learn, and can be an excellent way for older people to engage in a low-impact workout, both of these groups are at a high risk of drowning. Understanding this reality, Maryland lawmakers have heavily regulated the placement and operation of swimming pools in hopes of reducing the number of Maryland swimming pool accidents.

The most common cause of accidental drowning deaths in Maryland swimming pools is a lack of adult supervision. Most of these tragic accidents occur when a child has been unsupervised for less than five minutes. Thus, while supervision is the best preventative measure, additional safety precautions must also be taken.

Under Maryland’s swimming pool regulations, pool owners must obtain a permit to construct, alter, or replace a residential pool. The permit application requires prospective pool owners to obtain detailed plans of the pool, and comply with certain safety features. One of the most important requirements is that the pool is surrounded by a fence that is at least six feet tall and has no opening, other than through an open door, greater than four inches. Interestingly, however, a ladder to get out of the pool is not required under Maryland Code.

Skiing is the favorite seasonal pastime of many Maryland recreationalists. However, skiing can be a dangerous sport, especially when the ski resort does not take the necessary safety precautions. While the winter ski season has passed, now is a good time for those who were injured in a Maryland skiing accident to consider whether they may have a claim for compensation against the resort where their injuries occurred.

In general, ski resorts – like other landowners – have a duty to ensure that areas accessible by guests are safe and well maintained. This includes not just the resort’s skiable areas, but also restaurants, restrooms, locker rooms, and parking lots. When management is negligent in the operation of the resort, they may be held liable for any injuries that occur as a result of that negligence.

One issue that frequently comes up in ski accident cases is whether the injured skier gave up their right to pursue a claim against the ski resort by signing, or otherwise acknowledging, the resort’s release of liability. A recent case illustrates how courts review cases in which a defendant ski resort relies on a printed release of liability.

It has often been said that the best offense is a good defense. Thus, it is essential for those who have been injured in a Maryland slip-and-fall accident to understand the common ways that a defendant will try to defeat a plaintiff’s claim. There are two basic arguments that Maryland premises liability defendants use to evade accountability.

At its most basic, a Maryland premises liability claim requires the plaintiff to establish that the defendant landowner was negligent in the maintenance of their property. It may be that a landowner failed to warn visitors of a known hazard or that the landowner failed to remedy a hazard that, given the circumstances, the landowner should have known about. In either case, to prove a landowner’s negligence, the plaintiff must show that the defendant landowner knew or should have known about the hazard.

One common tactic is for a defendant landowner to argue that he did not have knowledge of the hazard. Importantly, Maryland premises liability law does not require a plaintiff to prove that a landowner had actual knowledge of a hazard. Indeed, most Maryland slip-and-fall cases proceed on the theory that the landowner had constructive knowledge of the hazard.

A Maryland landlord cannot ensure the safety of its residents, but it does have a duty to take reasonable security measures. In a recent case before a state appellate court, the court considered the extent of a condominium’s responsibility to protect its residents.

The Facts

According to the court’s opinion, the plaintiff was a new resident at a condo in downtown Atlanta. The declarations for the condominium stated that it was not responsible for providing security to residents. However, the plaintiff claimed the association provided what he considered to be security measures, such as security gates, and that these features contributed to him deciding to purchase the property.

Evidently, a security gate outside the property required a key fob for access, which he was told would be provided by the defendant property management company. More than two weeks after closing on the property, he was given a fob, but he could not get the fob to open the vehicle-access gate. The plaintiff contacted the company on multiple occasions. As he was attempting to resolve the issue with the key fob, about a month after he moved in, he was the victim of a violent attack on the sidewalk outside of his condominium complex. He had arrived home around 2:00 a.m. with his girlfriend, and after not being able to enter through the gate, and decided to park on the street. He got out of his car, and was stabbed three times in an attempted robbery.

Continue reading ›

There are many different types of Maryland product liability cases. Some product liability cases involve manufacturing mistakes while others are based on the defective design of a product or that it is unreasonably dangerous. Recently, the manufacturer of Round-Up weed killer has been in the hot seat after thousands of frequent users of the product have developed a specific type of cancer. While the manufacturer of the product claims that the product is safe, others argue that high levels of exposure can result in users developing non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.

Currently, a jury is considering phase one of a bellwether trial in San Francisco. A bellwether trial is the first case to proceed to trial that presents an issue that is also presented by many other pending lawsuits that have been filed by plaintiffs who are making similar claims. Thus, the result of a bellwether trial can be incredibly important to how the other subsequent lawsuits proceed. For example, if a judge decides a specific pre-trial motion in favor of the plaintiff, the defendant may be more willing to settle the subsequent cases.

According to a recent news report, the case involves a man who developed non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma after using Round-Up over 300 times in his 26-year career. The man claims that his use of Round-Up throughout his career was a “substantial factor” in causing his cancer. In addition, the plaintiff claims that the manufacturer of the product attempted to influence the public’s perception of the product’s safety by influencing scientists and regulators.

Continue reading ›

Although the concept of sovereign immunity is not mentioned anywhere in the U.S. Constitution or the Bill of Rights, courts have long held that the U.S. government is immune from liability without its consent. Under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), however, those who have been injured as a result of the conduct of a federal employee or agency may be able to pursue a claim for compensation.

The FTCA provides a strict set of procedural rules that must be followed in order for a case to be heard by a federal court. If an injury victim misses a deadline or otherwise fails to comply with one of the FTCA’s requirements, their claim will likely be dismissed. Thus, it is crucial for Maryland injury victims bringing claims under the FTCA to understand all of the requirements the FTCA imposes. A recent federal appellate opinion discusses the statute of limitations in FTCA claims.

The Facts of the Case

According to the court’s written opinion, in 2005, when the plaintiff was just five years old, when his father died in an auto accident. The accident occurred on an interstate highway. Because the plaintiff was only five years old at the time, the plaintiff’s mother filed a claim against the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). The claim alleged that a highway barrier failed during the accident, resulting in the plaintiff’s father’s death.

Continue reading ›

Contact Information