Maryland Accident Law Blog

To What Extent Do Maryland Schools Have a Duty to Protect Students?

December 17, 2018 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Recently, a state appellate court issued an opinion in a personal injury case discussing whether a plaintiff’s case against a public university should proceed toward trial. The case presents interesting issues that frequently arise in Maryland premises liability cases. Specifically, the duty a school owes to its students. Ultimately, the court concluded that the school owed the plaintiff a duty of care and that the plaintiff’s case should proceed toward trial or settlement negotiations.

The Facts

According to the court’s recitation of the facts giving rise to the plaintiff’s claim, a student with a documented history of mental health issues attacked the plaintiff with a knife during a chemistry lab. Evidently, the student who attacked the plaintiff had evinced paranoia-type symptoms to several university staff members and as a result was seeing a school psychologist at the time of the attack.

The plaintiff claimed that the school was liable for her injuries because the administrators failed to take action to protect her (and other students) from foreseeable threats of violence. The school argued that it did not owe the plaintiff a duty of care, and even if it did, by providing mental health services to the student the school fulfilled its duty.

Maintenance Worker Permitted to Proceed with Claim Against Property Owner in Recent Premises Liability Case

December 10, 2018 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

In Maryland, landowners owe a duty of care to those whom they invite onto their property. Generally, a property owner must take care to remedy known hazards on their property. Of course, a plaintiff’s own negligence can act to defeat their claim against a landowner, if the plaintiff fails to exercise reasonable care themselves.

Recently, a state appellate court issued a written opinion in a personal injury case discussing whether a maintenance worker’s claim against a property owner should proceed to a jury trial. Ultimately, the court concluded that it should, holding that the defendant had a non-delegable duty to maintain the property in a safe condition.

The Facts of the Case

According to the court’s opinion, the plaintiff was hired by the defendant property owner to change the lightbulbs atop four 30-foot metal poles surrounding a tennis court. The plaintiff had previously successfully changed the bulbs by attaching two ladders to reach the top of the pole.

Employee’s Slip-and-Fall Case Permitted to Proceed Against Parking Lot Maintenance Company

December 3, 2018 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Recently, a state appellate court issued an opinion in a personal injury case raising an interesting issue that all Maryland slip-and-fall injury victims should be aware of. The case discussed the potential liability of third-parties who may not initially be thought of as responsible parties.

The Facts of the Case

According to the court’s written opinion, the plaintiff was an employee at a restaurant. While working, the employee was asked to empty a grease trap into a dumpster in the rear of the restaurant. While the plaintiff was walking the trap back to the dumpster, he stepped in an open water meter, causing him to spill hot oil on himself.

The plaintiff initially named his employer and several related parties (the employers) in his lawsuit. In response, those parties named the defendant maintenance company (the defendant) in a third-party complaint. The employers argued that the defendant was liable for the plaintiff’s injuries under a contract the defendant had to perform maintenance of the parking lot area. The plaintiff then named the defendant in his lawsuit, as well.

Plaintiff’s Medical Malpractice Case Dismissed for Failure to Provide Sworn Expert Testimony

November 23, 2018 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Recently, a state appellate court issued an opinion in a case illustrating the importance of meticulously following the procedural requirements of a Maryland medical malpractice lawsuit. Specifically, the case involved a plaintiff’s failure to provide sworn expert testimony.

The Facts of the Case

According to the court’s recitation of the facts, the plaintiff scheduled a knee surgery at the defendant medical center. Shortly after the operation was completed, the plaintiff began to suffer shortness of breath. One of the defendant doctors placed the plaintiff on oxygen and ordered an X-ray. The plaintiff was subsequently discharged. A few days later, the plaintiff returned complaining of shortness of breath. The plaintiff was diagnosed with pneumonia and exhibited signs that she had suffered a stroke.

The plaintiff filed a medical malpractice case against several of the medical providers, as well as the medical center. The defendants moved for summary judgment based on the plaintiff’s failure to attach any sworn expert testimony. The plaintiff responded by providing the name of an expert witness she expected to testify and a brief unsworn summary of what the expert’s testimony would cover. The defendants argued that the unsworn summary was not sufficient, and sought dismissal of the plaintiff’s case.

Court Finds Plaintiff’s Misuse of Tool Was Fatal to His Product Liability Claim

November 15, 2018 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Earlier this month, a state appellate court issued an opinion in a personal injury case discussing several important issues that frequently arise in Maryland product liability cases. The case required the court to determine if the plaintiff’s misuse of the defendant’s product constituted a complete defense to the plaintiff’s claim. The court concluded that it did and dismissed the plaintiff’s claim against the defendant manufacturer.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff owned a die grinder manufactured by the defendant. The grinder was an air-powered tool that was compatible with various attachments and was designed for a variety of applications. According to the court’s opinion, the grinder contained an instruction manual indicating that all instructions should be read before using the product and “failure to comply with instructions could result in personal injury.”

Evidently, the manual instructed users only to use the cut-off wheel attachment when a safety guard is in place. Additionally, the instructions indicated that only attachments that were rated up to 25,000 revolutions per minute (RPM) should be used. The manual also instructed users to wear safety glasses at all times while using the product. The grinder did not come with a safety guard.

Court Permits Medical Malpractice Case to Proceed Despite Lack of Expert Affidavit

November 8, 2018 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Under Maryland Courts and Judicial Proceedings Section 3-2C-02, a Maryland medical malpractice claim “shall be dismissed … if the claimant fails to file a certificate of a qualified expert with the court.” This requirement was initially implemented to deter the filing of frivolous medical malpractice lawsuits and to ensure that meritorious claims are heard expediently. However, over time the requirement has become the focus of significant litigation as medical professionals routinely attempt to use it as a defense to any claim made against them.

Earlier this month, a state appellate court issued a written opinion in a personal injury case discussing the expert-affidavit requirement. Ultimately, the court concluded that the alleged negligence of the medical professional was not “directly involved” or “proximate” to the procedure the plaintiff was undergoing. Thus, the court held that the requirement did not apply.

The Facts of the Case

According to the court’s opinion, the plaintiff was scheduled to have a hysterectomy. Before the surgery began, the defendant anesthesiologist attempted to intubate the plaintiff. However, while the defendant was in the process of intubating the plaintiff, the power went out. While the lights were out, the defendant allegedly dropped a medical tool on the plaintiff’s tooth, chipping it.

Court Discusses Property Owner’s Non-Delegable Duty to Keep Area Safe in Recent Premises Liability Case

November 1, 2018 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Recently, a state appellate court issued an opinion in a personal injury case discussing whether the defendant, the owner of a car repair shop, could be held liable for the plaintiff’s injuries. The court ultimately concluded that the defendant’s duty to maintain the shop in a reasonably safe condition was a non-delegable duty, and thus, the jury’s decision to hold the defendant partially responsible for the plaintiff’s injuries was proper.

The case is important for Maryland slip-and-fall accident victims in that it discusses what a property owner’s non-delegable duties are and under what circumstances they may be transferred to another party.

The Facts of the Case

The defendant owned an auto repair shop. He leased a portion of the shop to another mechanic but maintained an office on location and continued to use the shop. The defendant was the only one with keys to the shop, and the mechanic could not enter or use the shop without the defendant being present.

Plaintiff’s Case Permitted to Proceed Despite a Failure to Preserve Relevant Evidence

October 22, 2018 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Recently, a state appellate court issued a written opinion in a personal injury case dealing with the spoliation doctrine, which allows for a court to impose sanctions against a party who fails to preserve relevant evidence. The case presents an interesting issue for Maryland car accident victims in that it illustrates the range of consequences a party may face for failing to preserve evidence that is relevant to a pending legal proceeding.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff was the surviving husband of a woman who was killed in a car accident. According to the court’s opinion, the woman’s vehicle hydroplaned while driving over a portion of the road that was flooded due to a clogged storm drain. The plaintiff filed a wrongful death lawsuit against the city that was charged with maintaining the storm drain. It was undisputed that the storm drain was on city property, although the city believed it to be on county property.

After the woman’s vehicle was towed to a scrap yard, the scrap yard owner sent the plaintiff a letter indicating that the vehicle was incurring daily storage fees. Shortly after receipt of this letter, the plaintiff retained counsel, who sent a letter to the scrap yard requesting the vehicle be preserved. Counsel followed up with a telephone call the next week, and was not told that preservation of the vehicle was dependent on the payment of fees. Counsel instructed the scrap yard to direct any questions to him.

How Strict Liability Applies in Maryland Dog Bite Cases

October 15, 2018 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

By and large, dogs are loyal companions and when well-trained present little danger to those whom they come into contact with while out in public. However, each year hundreds of people are bitten or attacked by a dog. For the most part, these Maryland dog bite injuries are the result of irresponsible dog owners who fail to provide their pets with the necessary care or supervision. However, some dogs are naturally more aggressive and may attack passersby without warning.

As a general rule, a dog owner can only be held liable for injuries caused by their animal if they knew or had reason to know that the animal was dangerous. Historically, Maryland applied the “one bite” rule, meaning that an owner was only presumed to know of a dog’s propensity for violence if the dog had bitten (or attempted to bite) someone in the past. However, in 2014 the Maryland legislature changed the state’s dog-bite liability statute.

Currently, Maryland employs a strict liability framework when determining if an owner can be held liable for injuries caused by their dog. This means that a dog bite victim will not need to establish that the owner was negligent in any way or knew of their dog’s propensity for violence. Under Maryland Code § 3-1901(a), evidence that a dog attacked another person creates a “rebuttable presumption that the owner knew or should have known that the dog had vicious or dangerous propensities.” Thus, under § 3-1901, an owner will be presumed to be liable for the injuries caused by their animals unless the owner can provide evidence that they did not know of the dog’s dangerous propensities.

Court Considers Whether Construction Loaders Are “Dangerous Instrumentalities”

October 8, 2018 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Earlier this month, a state appellate court issued an opinion in a personal injury case brought by a man whose finger was severed while working with a construction loader. The lawsuit was filed against the company that leased the loader to his employer and required the court to determine whether a construction loader is a dangerous instrumentality. Ultimately, the court concluded that the defendant lessor could be liable under that state’s vicarious liability laws because the loader was a dangerous instrumentality. If you have sustained an accident on a construction site, contact a Maryland construction accident attorney.

The Facts of the Case

According to the court’s opinion, the plaintiff was contracted to help clear a vacant lot of debris. The lot’s owner leased a construction loader from the defendant equipment company to assist the plaintiff and his team by clearing the lot.

Evidently, at one point the plaintiff climbed inside the loader to pack down loose debris. While the plaintiff was inside, another employee used the loader to pick up and deposit a large tree stump. As the stump came into the loader, it crushed the plaintiff’s finger.