Maryland Accident Law Blog

Plaintiff’s Failure to Comply with Pre-Lawsuit Notice Results in Dismissal of Case

September 1, 2017 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Maryland state and local governments face a significant number of Maryland accident lawsuits each year. In many cases, the government named as a defendant may concede liability and offer a settlement agreement to an accident victim in return for the victim agreeing not to pursue the case in court. However, before a government entity can make the determination of whether the accident victim’s case is meritorious, the government entity must first learn about the plaintiff’s injury.

To help expedite the process, anyone considering filing a personal injury case against a Maryland government entity must first file notice to that entity, providing certain information, including the nature of their injury, where it occurred, and what the accident victim is asking to receive. An accident victim who fails to file this pre-lawsuit notice, or files a notice that does not comply with the requirements, risks the early dismissal of their case. This is what happened in a recent premises liability case out of Georgia.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff was injured when he stepped in a manhole that was not covered. The plaintiff initially reported the open manhole to the police department and provided the address of 425 Chappell Road, which was at the intersection of Chappell Road and Mayson Turner Road.

Plaintiff’s Medical Malpractice Case Fails Due to Incomplete Language in Initial Pleading

August 22, 2017 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

The document that initiates a Maryland medical malpractice lawsuit against a defendant is called the complaint. Under Maryland law, a plaintiff’s complaint must be drafted according to guidelines. For example, a complaint must contain sufficiently specific allegations to put the defendant on notice regarding the lawsuit and how they were alleged to have been negligent. A recent case illustrates how one plaintiff’s failure to draft a sufficiently specific complaint resulted in a jury verdict in her favor being reversed.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff, a breast cancer survivor, was scheduled to have reconstructive surgery performed by the defendant. However, due to the radiation used to treat the cancer, there were risks involved with the procedure. The defendant discussed the risks with the plaintiff, and initially the plaintiff agreed to proceed with surgery on both breasts.

The plaintiff claims that she later changed her mind and revoked consent to operate on her left breast, citing concerns over the radiation. The plaintiff still wanted to proceed with reconstructive surgery on her right breast.

Court Permits Plaintiff’s Lawsuit Based on Injury Sustained Due to Falling Tree Branch on Public Property

August 15, 2017 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Earlier this month, an appellate court in California issued a written opinion in a premises liability case in which the plaintiff was injured by a falling tree branch while visiting a public marine park. The court was tasked with determining whether the plaintiff’s claim was barred by the trail immunity, which confers immunity to state and local governments when someone is injured while using a public trail. Ultimately, the court concluded that since the plaintiff’s injury was caused by the falling tree branch, rather than the trail itself, immunity did not attach, and the plaintiff was permitted to continue forward with her lawsuit.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff and a friend were visiting Mission Bay Park, which is the largest marine park in the United States. The two were walking on or near a path when a branch from a eucalyptus tree fell, injuring the plaintiff. She filed a premises liability lawsuit against the government entity in charge of maintaining the park, claiming that the tree was negligently maintained.

The government claimed it was immune from liability under trail immunity. However, the court explained that the injury was not caused by a defect or dangerous condition of the trail itself, but instead by the negligently maintained tree. Thus, trail immunity did not apply.

Court Determines Personal Injury Plaintiff Assumed the Risk of Participating in Horse Race, Preventing Plaintiff’s Recovery

August 8, 2017 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Earlier this month, an appellate court in California issued a written opinion in a personal injury lawsuit filed by a woman who was seriously injured when she was run over by a horse during a race in which she was participating. The case is important for Maryland personal injury plaintiffs because it acts as a warning, illustrating how defendants may attempt to evade liability through the doctrine of assumption of the risk.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff was participating in a horse race spanning either 25 or 50 miles, depending on the rider’s preference. During the race, riders were to stop at checkpoints to obtain playing cards indicating that they did indeed make their way around the predetermined circuit.

At approximately the eight-mile mark, the plaintiff was in the leading group of riders. The plaintiff dismounted her horse to obtain the playing card, as per the race rules. However, as she did so, the defendant’s horse ran into a nearby cluster of other horses, causing a chain-reaction accident. Several of the horses were startled and took off running. The plaintiff was injured when she was trampled by one of the horses.

Personal Injury Cases Based on Maryland Sports Injuries

August 1, 2017 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Participation in sports comes with a number of benefits, including camaraderie, athleticism, and socialization. However, sports can also be dangerous, especially when the proper precautions are not taken. Generally, the school association or professional league overseeing the sport is responsible for ensuring players are reasonably safe as they participate.

On occasion, however, a league or school administration fails to take adequate precautions to guard against player injuries. Alternatively, the players may not be properly warned of the dangers involved in participating in the sporting activity, or parental consent may not be obtained prior to a student’s participation. In these situations, anyone injured as a result of their participation in the sporting activity may be entitled to compensation though a Maryland personal injury lawsuit.

Research Study Finds CTE More Common Than Originally Believed

Chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE) is a degenerative brain disease that is found in those who suffer repeated blows to the head. Symptoms of CTE include depression, anxiety, substance abuse, memory loss, cognitive impairment, and suicidal thoughts or actions. Over the past few years, researchers have linked CTE to participation in professional football. However, until recently, it was not understood how common CTE was among players.

Court Dismissed Tenant’s Slip-and-Fall Case Against Condo Association and Property Management Company

July 24, 2017 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Maryland premises liability lawsuits are often centered around the relationship between the parties. For example, land and business owners owe a greater duty of care to those whom they invite onto their property than those who gain entry by accident or through trespassing. Earlier this month, an appellate court in Georgia issued a written opinion in a slip-and-fall case brought by a tenant in a condominium complex against the condo association and the property management company. The court ultimately dismissed the case against the defendants because no landlord-tenant relationship could be shown, illustrating the importance of naming the proper parties in a Maryland premises liability lawsuit.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff was living in a condo that she rented from the owner. The plaintiff had an oral lease with the owner; no written lease existed. While living in the condo, the plaintiff complained to the condo association several times about the lack of lighting near a specific set of stairs; however, the association took no action. One day, the plaintiff slipped and fell while descending the stairs. The plaintiff filed a personal injury lawsuit, naming both the condominium association and the property management company responsible for the complex’s maintenance.

The defendants argued that the plaintiff should not be entitled to recover compensation because she was aware of the hazard that ultimately caused her fall. In response, the plaintiff cited the “necessity rule,” which allows for recovery even when an accident is caused by a known hazard if the tenant must cross the hazard by necessity. The trial court agreed with the plaintiff, and the defendants’ motion for summary judgment was denied. The defendants then appealed to a higher court.

Court Determines Good Samaritan Was “Occupying” Vehicle as She Provided Road-Side Assistance to Accident Victim

July 17, 2017 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Insurance companies can be one of the biggest roadblocks to a Maryland car accident victim receiving the compensation they deserve. Earlier this month, an appellate court in Rhode Island issued an interesting opinion in a car accident case involving the question of whether the plaintiff was “occupying” the insured vehicle at the time he was struck by a passing motorist. The court ultimately concluded that the plaintiff was occupying the vehicle and that the insurance company covering that vehicle should not have denied his claim.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff was the passenger in a car driver by her then-boyfriend. The two had just pulled up to a grocery store and were talking in the car before getting out to enter the store. As the two were talking, they heard two cars collide on an adjacent road.

The plaintiff got out of the car and approached the accident scene. As she walked behind one of the cars to get its license plate information, another vehicle came down the road, crashing into the two cars that were just involved in the accident. The plaintiff was injured as a result of this second accident.

Appellate Court Determines Slip-and-Fall Plaintiff’s Case Should Have Been Presented to the Jury

July 10, 2017 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Last month, an appellate court in Rhode Island issued a written opinion in a premises liability lawsuit that was brought by a tenant of an apartment complex who slipped and fell on a patch of black ice in the complex parking lot. At the conclusion of the plaintiff’s case against the complex’s management company, before the case was presented to the jury, the trial judge granted the defendant’s motion for judgment as a matter of law. The appellate court was tasked with determining whether the trial judge was proper to decide the case as a matter of law rather than submit the case to a jury for a factual resolution of the plaintiff’s claim.

The Appellate Court’s Decision

In the above case, the appellate court determined that the lower court was improper to decide the case as a matter of law. The court explained that there was evidence presented by the plaintiff indicating that the defendant may have been negligent. Specifically, the plaintiff testified that the defendant would plow any fallen snow in the parking lot to an area that was slightly above the level of the parking lot. Thus, when the snow melted, water would run onto the parking lot, where it could later re-freeze, creating a hazard. Indeed, the plaintiff also presented evidence, through his wife’s testimony, that he had complained about these ice patches on numerous occasions.

Judgment as a Matter of Law in Maryland Courts

In Maryland personal injury cases, it is the judge’s job to rule on all legal issues. For example, a judge will often determine which evidence the jury is able to consider and instruct the jury on the law that pertains to the case. The jury’s job is to then apply the law as explained by the judge to the facts of the case, resolving any factual disputes.

Maryland Wrongful Birth Claims

July 3, 2017 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Over the last century, the development of modern medicine has resulted in not just a decrease in the mortality rate of infants but also in the ability to determine whether an unborn child will suffer from a serious, life-altering abnormality. Through diligent testing and a thorough analysis of a couple’s medical history, doctors are now able to advise parents about which, if any, conditions their offspring may be at risk of developing.

Given the advances made in the medical field and the current ability to intervene to avoid the birth of a child who will suffer from a debilitating, life-long incurable disease, the duty physicians owe to their patients has grown to include advising patients about their specific risks. If a physician fails to advise a patient of these risks, and the patient gives birth to a child with a serious disease that would have been detectable through proper testing, a wrongful birth lawsuit may be appropriate. A recent case illustrates what a wrongful birth case is and how a plaintiff can go about proving one.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiffs were a couple who gave birth to a child with severe disabilities. During the pregnancy, an ultrasound was conducted that displayed congenital abnormalities; however, the plaintiffs’ doctor failed to inform the plaintiffs about these defects. The plaintiffs claimed that they would have chosen to terminate the pregnancy had they been made aware of the risks involved with carrying the pregnancy full-term.

Court Determines Zip-Line Is Not a “Dangerous Condition,” Upholding Government Immunity in Recent Personal Injury Case

June 22, 2017 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Earlier this month, an appellate court in Colorado issued a written opinion in a premises liability lawsuit that was brought by the parents of a young girl who was seriously injured while playing in her school’s playground. Ultimately, the court concluded that the zip-line on which the girl was playing did not constitute a “dangerous condition” and upheld the school’s governmental immunity.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiffs’ daughter was playing on a zip-line in her school’s playground when she fell from the apparatus and fractured her wrist and forearm. There was a sign next to the zip-line stating “adult supervision required”; however, it was not clear if there was a school employee nearby when the accident occurred. After their daughter recovered, the parents filed a premises liability lawsuit against the school.

Initially, the school asked the court to dismiss the case, arguing that under state law, the school was entitled to government immunity. However, the plaintiffs argued that under the same state law, immunity is not proper when a government is responsible for a “dangerous condition” that is on public property. Thus, the question for the court was whether the zip-line constituted a dangerous condition.