Articles Posted in Wrongful Death

Maryland state troopers are looking into a recent Maryland roadside crash in which a AAA worker was killed while changing a tire. According to one news source, the AAA worker had just finished changing a flat tire on I-70 in Marriottsville when a pickup truck driver hit him and his work van. Investigators are still trying to determine what caused the crash, including possible factors such as distracted driving and speed. The crash occurred at around 11:30 in the morning. The worker was wearing a safety vest and the emergency lights on the work van were flashing.

A AAA Public and Government Affairs Manager said that the crash highlighted the dangers that first responders, police, tow truck drivers, and EMS face every day on the side of the road while assisting others. A AAA representative reported that this was the sixth worker killed on the job within the last six months. A recent AAA survey found that 75 percent of first responders in Maryland report that drivers do not move over or slow down.

Maryland’s Move Over, Slow Down Law and Its Consequences

When Maryland drivers approach emergency, tow truck, law enforcement, transportation, and utility vehicles that are stopped, standing, or parked on the highway with their lights flashing, drivers must move over. If drivers cannot safely move over, then they must slow to a reasonable and safe speed considering the conditions. The law originally applied only to first responders and law enforcement but later expanded to include tow truck drivers. Violators of the law may be fined and may be charged with criminal charges in some cases. They also may be subject to civil lawsuits if anyone is injured as a result.

Continue reading ›

State police in Maryland are investigating two fatal crashes that occurred on a recent weekend in Cecil County, Maryland, according to one news source. In the first fatal crash, according to a preliminary investigation, shortly before 10 pm on a Saturday night, a driver was driving a car southbound on MD 272 in North East, Maryland when she struck a pedestrian who was crossing the road. The pedestrian, a 39-year-old woman from Elkton, Maryland, died at the scene of the crash. Law enforcement was deciding whether any charges would be filed in the case. The second fatal crash occurred in the same area just a few hours later. According to a preliminary investigation, the crash occurred around 2 am when a Jeep Cherokee drove southbound in the northbound lanes on MD 272. The Jeep crashed into a Ford F-250 head-on which had been traveling northbound. The driver of the Jeep died as a result. He was 60 years old and was from Delaware.

Filing a Claim After a Fatal Crash

In the tragic event of the death of a loved one, the family members of the victim may be able to file a wrongful death claim against any parties responsible for the loss of the victim. Under Maryland’s Wrongful Death Act, certain surviving family members can file a lawsuit after their loved one’s death to seek to hold responsible parties liable and to seek compensation. A wrongful death claim may provide surviving family members with compensation for the losses suffered due to their loved one’s death, including loss of companionship, loss of financial support, and more.

In a wrongful death claim after a fatal crash, similar to other negligence lawsuits, the plaintiff has to prove: that the defendant owed the victim a duty of care; that the defendant failed to meet the standard of care by acting or failing to act in some way; that the defendant’s breach of the standard of care caused the victim’s injuries; and that the plaintiff suffered damages. A plaintiff has the burden to prove that it was more likely than not that the victim’s injuries were caused by the defendant’s conduct.

Continue reading ›

Motorcycle accidents are one of the most dangerous incidents and often result in serious injuries and fatalities. According to the most recent statistics by the Maryland Department of Transportation (MDT), Maryland motorcycle accidents accounted for about 2% of the total number of accidents in the state. However, motorcycle crashes comprised almost 15% of all the fatal accidents in the state. Moreover, four out of five of the passengers killed in these accidents were not wearing any safety equipment. In combination with the steady increase in motorcycle accidents, these startling statistics highlight the importance of motorcycle safety for both operators and passengers.

Motorcycle passengers and operators are more vulnerable to serious injuries because of the lack of protection from impacts with other vehicles or objects. Moreover, motorcycle passengers are often thrown from the bikes after a collision occurs. These situations can result in the passenger being run over by oncoming traffic, slammed into the concrete, or thrown into a guard rail or similar static object.

For example, a news report recently described a tragic motorcycle accident that involved a bike and a sedan. According to a preliminary investigation, the motorcycle crossed through a center line and slammed head-on with the sedan. Law enforcement reported that the motorcycle driver suffered serious injuries, and the passenger died.

Expert testimony is useful in many Maryland accident cases, and in some cases, expert testimony is essential. Under Maryland Rule of Evidence 5-702, expert testimony may be admitted if the court finds that the testimony will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue. In determining whether to admit expert testimony, a court will consider whether the witness is qualified as an expert, whether the testimony is appropriate, and whether there is a sufficient factual basis to support the testimony.

A recent decision of the Supreme Court of Virginia considered whether a trial court properly excluded expert testimony in a wrongful death case arising from “an unexplainable single-vehicle accident” in which both occupants died. According to the decision, one morning, a tractor-trailer owned by a company left its lane of travel on a highway and rolled down an embankment in Rockbridge County, Virginia. The crash killed both of the occupants of the vehicle: an employee of the company, who was transporting fertilizer, and the plaintiff, who was a friend of the employee and accompanied the employee on the day of the crash.

The plaintiff (administrator of the friend’s estate) filed a complaint against the employer and against the administrator of the employee’s estate, seeking damages for wrongful death.

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.

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,

Many Maryland residents go to and from work every day without ever experiencing any major accidents. Sometimes, however, accidents occur on the job, and employees will find themselves injured because of something that happened while they were working. These accidents can take many forms. For example, mailmen might get bitten by a dog while delivering mail, or they might trip while walking up to someone’s door to drop off a package. Grocery store workers might slip on a wet floor, or mechanics might get injured by faulty machinery. In many of these circumstances, the employee would be eligible to claim worker’s compensation and recover financially for their losses against their employer. In some cases, however, a worker may also be able to bring a third-party work injury claim to recover for the damages they have suffered.

Third-party work injury claims are filed by an employee injured on the job against a negligent party other than their employer—a third party. This type of claim is available when the injury was caused in full or in part by a party other than the employer. For example, take a tragic accident from earlier this month. According to a local news report, the accident occurred around 7:30 one night at a Home Depot. A delivery driver (who did not work for Home Depot) was delivering construction materials when a load of drywall fell on him at the store, striking and ultimately killing him. Not much more is known about this incident right now, but it was clearly an unexpected tragedy.

This is an example of a situation where an employee—or in this case, an employee’s family, since the victim was killed—may be able to file a third-party claim. In this case, rather than suing the victim’s employer, the plaintiffs would potentially file suit against Home Depot. To be successful in this claim, the plaintiffs would have to prove that Home Depot, or one of its employees, somehow caused the accident. Perhaps they negligently secured the drywall high up somewhere, creating a risk that it would fall on someone below, for example. If the plaintiffs can successfully prove that Home Depot was responsible for the accident, they can recover financially against them to try and make them whole after the damage suffered. Damages awarded to plaintiffs in cases such as these commonly include medical expenses, pain and suffering, lost wages, and even funeral and burial costs.

The tragic thing about Maryland personal injury accidents is that they can happen instantaneously, in the blink of an eye, without any forewarning. While sometimes they may occur in more expected places—such as car accidents occurring while driving on the highway—there are sometimes where Maryland residents are injured, through no fault of their own, out of nowhere. These accidents can be incredibly frustrating for the victim and their families, as they are suddenly injured, have to pay medical bills, might miss work, and may deal with long-lasting physical ailments as well as mental and psychological pain.

For example, take a recent shocking Maryland accident reported by the Baltimore Sun. According to the news article, a car crashed through a front window area of the Parkville Crabs restaurant in Baltimore County one afternoon. It is believed that the driver accidentally hit the gas pedal in the parking lot, causing them to drive through the front of the restaurant unexpectedly. A 35-year-old woman inside was killed after being hit by debris from the crash. Investigators are still looking into the accident and working on an accident reconstruction to figure out exactly what happened, but believe that it was not intentional. Instead, it is thought to be just a tragic and unfortunate mistake.

This fatal accident is just one example of something that can happen unexpectedly and change a life in an instant. While nothing can undo the damage that these accidents cause, and there is no way to fully prevent each and every one from happening in the first place, Maryland state law does at least allow victims one course to recovery. Those injured can file what is called a personal injury lawsuit against the negligent individual or company who caused the accident.

The state-created danger theory imposes liability on a governmental entity for acts committed by a private actor. It generally applies in situations where the state increases the risk of harm to an individual through the state’s affirmative acts. Although courts have considered the doctrine in Maryland accident cases, Maryland had not adopted the state-created danger theory as a basis for recovery for violations under the state’s constitution. In general, under Maryland law, a private party does not have a duty to control a third party’s conduct to prevent harm to another person. However, a private party may have a duty when there is a special relationship between the private party and the third party or between the private party and the injured person. Whether a special relationship exists is determined on a case-by-case basis.

A federal appeals court recently considered the doctrine in a case involving three family members who died in a fire after the fire department failed to go look for them. According to the court’s opinion, the woman was in her apartment with her son and her stepfather and called 911 when they saw their apartment building was on fire. An operator from the fire department told her to stay inside the apartment and that help was on the way. The firefighters drove to the wrong location, and when they did arrive at the scene, they were never told that the family was inside, and no one searched for them. The three family members remained inside and died from smoke inhalation. No one looked for them until days later, when the firefighters found their bodies inside the apartment.

The estates of three family members sued the city and two fire department employees. The estates claimed that the state-created danger doctrine applied because the dispatcher told them to close themselves in their room, assured them that firefighters were on their way, and then failed to communicate the family’s presence or location to the firefighters. The court explained that the doctrine requires that there be, 1.) a foreseeable and fairly direct harm, 2.) an action that shocks the conscience, 3.) a relationship with the state that makes the plaintiff a foreseeable victim, and 4.) an affirmative use of state authority that created a danger or made others more vulnerable. The court held that the doctrine was inapplicable because there was it was not an affirmative act and because the conduct did not “shock the conscience.” It held that the dispatcher did not act affirmatively because the dispatcher only failed to communicate the family’s location to the firefighters, and the operator’s failure to communicate the family’s location was not sufficient to “shock the conscience,” in part, because it was not an intentional act.

In a recent case before a state appellate court, the court considered whether a spouse could be added to a wrongful death claim after the statute of limitations had expired. In that case, a man was transported to a hospital via ambulance after he began bleeding from the area where he was receiving dialysis treatment. He died three days later. The man’s wife initially did not want to participate in the lawsuit and the man’s children sued several medical providers for wrongful death. The defendants argued that the case should be dismissed because the spouse was not a plaintiff in the suit. Under the state’s wrongful death statute, children can only bring a wrongful death claim if the deceased person does not have a surviving spouse. After the statute of limitations had passed, the plaintiffs attempted to add the wife to the claim. The trial court dismissed the suit against certain defendants because the wife had not filed the claim, but allowed it to continue against the providers.

The appeals court ruled that the court should have allowed the wife to be added. The court held that in this case, the amendment adding the spouse to the lawsuit after the expiration of the statute of limitation related back to the original complaint because it arose out of the same occurrence and the defendant would not be prejudiced. The court stated that a delay in filing was not enough to deny the amendment of the spouse. Therefore, the trial court should have added the wife to the case, and the court reinstated the case.

Possible Plaintiffs Under Maryland’s Wrongful Death Statute

Maryland personal injury lawsuits, although often complicated, boil down to four simple elements. In order to be successful, the plaintiff must prove (1) the defendant owed them a duty; (2) the defendant breached that duty; (3) the breach caused the plaintiff’s injuries; and (4) the plaintiff suffered real damages as a result. In some cases, the first two of these elements can be established just by the existence of a statute and the defendant’s violation of that statute. When this happens, the claim is considered negligence per se, and the plaintiff then only really has to establish two of the elements, instead of four.

A state appellate court recently considered a negligence per se claim in a wrongful death suit. According to the court’s written opinion, the deceased was driving his four-wheeler on another’s property, and the owner had given him permission to be there. While driving, one of the vehicle’s wheels fell into a well that was hidden from view by vegetation. This caused the vehicle to turn over, and the driver fell into the well and tragically died.

The deceased’s wife, the plaintiff in this case, brought a negligence action against a forestry service who had done work on the property, alleging that they were negligent in failing to report the open well to the property owner. The plaintiff pointed to a state statute that required anyone aware of “an open abandoned well or hole” located on “public or private property” to the governing authority. According to the plaintiff, this statute created a duty, and the defendant’s failure to report the well-constituted a breach of that duty, satisfying two of the required elements in a negligence suit.

Contact Information