Maryland Accident Law Blog

Federal Appellate Court Reverses Lower Court’s Evidentiary Ruling, Allowing Plaintiff’s Expert Witness’ Testimony

August 10, 2015 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Earlier this month, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals decided a case that deals with an evidentiary issue common in many personal injury lawsuits: the admissibility of expert testimony. In the case of Sorrels v. NCL (Bahamas), the plaintiff was a customer on one of NCL’s cruise ships. At some point during the cruise, the plaintiff slipped and fell on the deck of the ship and fractured her wrist. At the time, the deck was wet from a recent rainfall. She filed suit against the cruise line, alleging its negligence in maintaining the ship’s deck.

The Issues at Trial

In this slip-and-fall case, one of the critical issues was what the ship deck’s coefficient of friction (COF) was. COF is a scientific term experts use to describe how much force is necessary to move one surface over another. In this case, the relevant surface was the ship’s deck; the higher the COF, the less slippery the surface will be.

The plaintiff called an expert at trial to testify to the ship deck’s COF. The expert tested the ship’s deck, although it was 520 days after the slip-and-fall accident. The expert also was going to testify to what he believed that the “normal” COF for a ship deck on a commercial cruise line should be. Specifically, the expert had four conclusions:

Court Determines Lifeguard’s Failure to Save Drowning Child Wasn’t the “Cause” of the Boy’s Death

August 3, 2015 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Earlier this month, the Michigan Supreme Court heard a case brought by a grieving mother against the lifeguard she claimed was responsible for her son’s death. In the case, Beals v. State of Michigan, the plaintiff’s 19-year-old son who suffered from severe learning disabilities drowned while at a state-run swimming pool designed for children with learning disabilities.

The evidence at trial showed that there were 24 others in the pool at the time of the boy’s death. The lifeguard, who was named as a defendant in the lawsuit, was on duty but didn’t see the young man become submerged. In fact, no one in the pool saw the woman’s son go under water. It wasn’t until minutes later that another swimmer who had goggles on saw the boy at the bottom of the pool. Swimmers yelled for the lifeguard, but he didn’t respond for another several minutes. When emergency personnel arrived, they pronounced the boy dead.

The boy’s mother filed suit against the State of Michigan, as the operator of the pool, as well as the lifeguard, as a state employee. The lifeguard asserted “sovereign immunity” as a defense and asked the court to dismiss the case against him.

Federal Appellate Court Discusses Presumption of Negligence in Rear-End Accident Cases

July 22, 2015 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Earlier this month, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals decided a case that discussed the presumption of negligence that arises when one driver rear-ends another driver in the context of a personal injury suit. In the case of Lopez v. United States, Lopez, the plaintiff, sought monetary damages from the United States government after an accident that she was involved in with a postal employee.

According to the court’s opinion, Lopez was traveling as a passenger in a vehicle being operated by a friend. The lane in which they were traveling came to an end at the intersection that was quickly approaching. The driver of the vehicle switched lanes into the lane that was occupied by the postal truck. The truck rear-ended the vehicle that the plaintiff was inside and pushed it a short distance into the intersection. The airbags did not deploy, and the vehicle was able to be driven home by its owner.

A short time later, Lopez filed suit against the United States government, claiming that the postal employee was negligent in rear-ending the vehicle in which she was riding. Lopez pointed to a presumption under Missouri law that arises in rear-end accident cases and states that the driver who crashes into the rear of another driver is presumed to be at fault. However, the court failed to apply the doctrine and found in favor of the defendant.

Pick-Up Truck Driver Charged with Attempted Murder after Crashing into 20 Vehicles

July 15, 2015 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Earlier this week in Cambridge, Maryland, several people were injured when a pick-up truck towing two jet skis caused an accident involving roughly 20 other vehicles. According to one local news source, the accident took place on a Monday evening, just before nine o’clock, on Locust Street.

Evidently, the truck was driving with a trailer in tow when it started colliding with several other cars on the road, both occupied and unoccupied. Eventually, the truck lost control and ended up striking a marked police car head-on. The driver of the truck did sustain serious injuries and was flown to Peninsula Medical Center in Salisbury. The police officer whose car was hit was also taken to the hospital, and he is expected to make a full recovery with time. Those seem to be the only serious injuries.

After police caught up with the truck’s driver, they arrested him. He has since been charged with attempted murder and several other charges relating to the accident. Police are also awaiting toxicology reports to see if drugs or alcohol may have been a factor in what certainly seems to be an odd accident.

New Study Looks at Treatment of Gestational Diabetes

July 8, 2015 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Gestational diabetes is a form of diabetes that affects pregnant women and is a totally separate form of diabetes than the other two types, commonly referred to as Type I or Type II. It is estimated that around 18 percent of women will develop gestational diabetes at some point during their pregnancy, making it one of the more common pregnancy-related conditions experienced by expecting mothers.

In a nutshell, gestational diabetes is the name of the condition where a mother has too much sugar in her bloodstream. This is the result of the body’s failure to produce enough insulin. According to one recent news article, a new study looks at two common ways to treat gestational diabetes, insulin and glyburide.

As noted above, insulin is the hormone that is responsible for breaking down sugars and converting them into energy. A direct dose of insulin has long been one alternative to treating diabetes. However, more recently doctors have been prescribing glyburide to patients with gestational diabetes. The study takes a look at both medications and ultimately concludes that treatment by glyburide may result in a higher risk of required admission into the intensive care unit, a larger chance of the mother developing respiratory stress, and also a greater risk that the mother will be large for gestational age.

One Girl and Seven Others Injured in Maryland Speedboat Accident

July 1, 2015 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Earlier this week in the Chesapeake Bay, one young girl was killed and seven others were injured when a speed boat driver lost control of the boat he was operating, sending it into several other boats that were full of spectators. According to one news source, the girl was on a boat that was tethered together with several other boats, all of which were watching the speedboat race that was billed as “NASCAR on the water.”

Evidently, the accident occurred around five in the afternoon during the 25th annual Thunder in the Narrows race. As the boat’s operator lost control and careened into the string of spectator boats, seven people were injured, and one young girl died. Three of the injured victims were flown to the Shock Trauma Center at the University of Maryland in Baltimore. Four others sustained some minor injuries but were not hospitalized.

The U.S. Coast Guard is currently in the midst of an investigation into the accident, hoping to learn more as to why the boat’s operator lost control of the vessel. Charges have not been filed against the boat’s driver yet. However, that could change depending upon the conclusion of the investigation.

Eighty Maryland Drunk-Driving Arrests in One Weekend

June 22, 2015 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Earlier this month, an article by the local Baltimore CBS affiliate was published, indicating that over one weekend in June there were over 80 DUI or DUI-related arrests across the State of Maryland. According to the article, a large percentage of those DUI arrests involved drivers with a blood-alcohol content (BAC) of .16 or more, which is twice the legal limit for safe driving in Maryland.

Drunk driving has become such a problem in Maryland that the state police have created a task force, called the State Police Impaired Driving Reduction Effort (SPIDRE) Team. Of the 80 arrests across the State, 13 were made by the SPIDRE team. According to one member of SPIDRE, “Most of the people that we’re coming in contact with now, it’s not the people that get 1 or 2 drinks at dinner, it’s people that this is what they do, this is what they like to do,” referring to driving after consuming several drinks.

In fact, the average blood-alcohol content for a SPIDRE arrest is .17, which is well over the .08 legal limit. According to the CBS article, this is approximately seven or eight drinks for an average-sized man or approximately five drinks for an average-sized woman.

Plaintiff Loses Case When Judge Keeps Out Police Officer’s Opinion of Who Caused Accident

June 15, 2015 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Earlier this month, the Supreme Court of Appeals in West Virginia denied a plaintiff’s appeal in a car accident case that requested a new trial based on the lower court’s failure to allow the plaintiff to submit the responding police officer’s opinion as to which party caused the accident into evidence. In the case, Browning v. Hickman, the court had to consider two alleged errors made below and determine if either was sufficient to grant a new trial to the plaintiff.

The Facts of the Case

The case arose when the two parties were involved in an accident at an intersection. The defendant was traveling straight through the intersection and the plaintiff was making a left turn in front of the defendant when the accident occurred. Both parties claimed to have had the right of way. The plaintiff said he had a green arrow at the time, and the defendant claimed he had a green light.

A witness to the accident called 911, explaining that the plaintiff pulled out in front of the defendant’s car. Police arrived at the scene and, after a brief initial investigation concluded that it was the defendant who failed to yield to the plaintiff. However, that officer later told the attorneys that he wasn’t actually aware of whether the plaintiff did, in fact, have a green arrow.

Maryland Woman’s Medical Malpractice Claims Dismissed After Missing Statute of Limitations

June 8, 2015 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Earlier this month, the Court of Appeals of Maryland decided a case that may leave a lasting impression on the State’s medical malpractice law. In the case, Wilcox.v. Orellano, the plaintiff was a woman who was referred to the defendant surgeon for treatment of what she was told was likely to be breast cancer.

The defendant surgeon performed a surgery on the plaintiff’s breast. After the surgery, the plaintiff noticed that her breast was swollen and tender. She visited her oncologist who, after seeing the condition of her breast, thought it better not to perform the radiation and prescribed the woman antibiotics in hopes that the infection would subside. She took the antibiotics for some time and then, a few months later, called the defendant surgeon twice about her condition that was not improving. Each time the defendant did not suggest any course of treatment, merely telling her to continue taking the antibiotics.

A few months later, the plaintiff moved to North Carolina and began visiting a new oncologist, who, after performing a series of tests, confirmed that she had the MRSA virus. For the next six months, the woman fought the infection, which required she make daily visits to health care facilities. She ultimately ended up going into surgery to have the affected tissues removed.

State Supreme Court Wrestles with Tricky Statute of Limitations Issue

June 1, 2015 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Earlier this month, the Rhode Island Supreme Court decided an interesting case that may factor into how other states handle loss-of-consortium claims brought by parents against the medical professional they claim was responsible for their child’s preventable birth injury. In the case, Ho-Rath v. Rhode Island Hospital, the plaintiffs were the parents of a child born with a debilitating genetic birth defect.

The plaintiffs claimed that the defendants (several doctors and other medical professionals at the hospital where the mother was treated) were negligent in their treatment. Specifically, the plaintiffs claimed that it was negligent for them not to test the child, prior to her birth, for the genetic disorder that was known to be a possibility, given the family’s history with the disease. The case was brought when their child was 12 years old.

The parents sought compensation on behalf of their minor daughter, but also in their own capacity, seeking compensation for their loss of consortium. A loss of consortium claim seeks compensation for the loss in the enjoyment of another’s company, in this case, the couple’s child.