Maryland Accident Law Blog

Settlement Reached Between Baltimore Households and Exxon in Gas Station Leak Case Involving Claims for Medical Monitoring

January 21, 2014 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

A group of households in Baltimore County, Maryland recently settled their lawsuit against Exxon Mobil Corp. for property damage and other injuries allegedly resulting from a massive gasoline leak near their homes in 2006. Jury verdicts against the oil company totaled more than $1.6 billion, but the Maryland Court of Appeals reversed the awards. In addition to property damage, the plaintiffs asserted causes of action for emotional distress due to fear of developing a disease and “medical monitoring.” This refers to the ongoing costs of monitoring for the onset of illness after exposure to toxic materials. Maryland courts have never recognized medical monitoring as a claim or remedy before, but the orders reversing the verdicts included explicit recognition of such a remedy.

An underground storage tank at a gas station in Jacksonville, Maryland allegedly leaked for about five weeks in 2006, pouring over 26,000 gallons of gasoline into the ground and contaminating the groundwater. Many of the homes in the area rely on wells for their water supply. Maryland’s Department of the Environment commenced monitoring about 248 private wells in the area. Exxon settled with the state for $4 million for cleanup costs in 2008.

Several hundred people and businesses filed suit against Exxon Mobil, claiming more than $1 billion in damages. A jury awarded about $150 million in damages to about ninety households in 2009 for property damage, emotional distress, and medical monitoring. Another jury trial in 2011 resulted in a $1.5 billion award to about 160 households and businesses, including about $495 million in compensatory damages for fraud, property damage, emotional distress, and medical monitoring; and $1 billion in punitive damages.

Lawsuit Accuses Sheriff’s Deputies of Negligently Putting Locksmith in Harm’s Way, Resulting in His Death, During Attempted Eviction of Tenant with Violent History

January 14, 2014 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

A lawsuit alleges that sheriff’s deputies negligently placed a locksmith in an unreasonably dangerous situation by bringing him along on an eviction without warning him of specific known risks, resulting in his death. Engert, et al v. Stanislaus County, et al, No. 1:13-cv-00126, 2nd am. complaint (E.D. Ca., Oct. 23, 2013). The individual subject to eviction was reportedly known to be both heavily armed and violent, but the sheriff’s deputies allegedly did not warn the locksmith of the danger, nor did they provide any safeguards for him. The locksmith’s widow sued the county and various county officials for violations of her late husband’s civil and constitutional rights, negligence, and wrongful death.

Two deputies of the Stanislaus County Sheriff’s Department, Robert Paris and Michael Glinskas, were assigned on April 12, 2012 to perform an eviction at an apartment in Modesto, California. According to the plaintiff’s most recent amended complaint, the apartment’s occupant, James Ferrario, was known to the sheriff’s department as a “dangerous, mentally unstable individual, with weapons in his home,” and with a history of threats and assaults. The deputies brought a locksmith, Glendon Engert, along to open the apartment door.

The deputies allegedly did not warn Engert of the possible threat posed by Ferrario. Engert’s position in front of a doorway, with a possibly armed individual inside, is reportedly known as a “vertical coffin.” Ferrario opened fire from inside the apartment with armor-piercing bullets, killing Engert and Paris. After an eleven-hour standoff, Ferrario committed suicide. A search of his apartment yielded twenty-two firearms, including an M16 and an SKS rifle, and about five hundred rounds of ammunition.

Data Suggest That Noneconomic Damage Caps Do Not Reduce the Cost of Healthcare, While Maryland Courts Continue to Affirm Their Constitutionality

January 7, 2014 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Maryland state law imposes a cap on noneconomic damages in all personal injury and wrongful death cases. This applies to “nonpecuniary” damages like pain and suffering, mental anguish, disfigurement, physical impairment, and loss of consortium. MD Cts & Jud Pro Code §§ 3-2A-01(h), 11-108(a)(2). Advocates of damage caps, commonly known as “tort reform,” claim that they are necessary to keep insurance costs under control, particularly in the medical field, and therefore to keep costs down for the public. Opponents of tort reform, including advocates for patients’ rights and others, say that after more than a decade, caps on damages in personal injury litigation have not stopped an increase in healthcare and other costs. Maryland courts, meanwhile, have repeatedly affirmed noneconomic damages caps against constitutional challenges.

The law prohibits informing the jury about the noneconomic damage cap in personal injury, wrongful death, or medical malpractice trials. If a jury enters an award that exceeds the cap, the court is directed to reduce the amount accordingly. As of October 1, 2013, noneconomic damages in personal injury and wrongful death claims, other than medical malpractice claims, are capped at $785,000 for all claims arising from a single incident. The only exception to this is a wrongful death claim with multiple beneficiaries, in which case state law increases the maximum amount by fifty percent. The cap increases by $15,000 every October 1. MD Cts & Jud Pro Code § 11-108(b)(2). For medical malpractice claims, the cap is $740,000 as of January 1, 2014, increased by twenty-five percent for a wrongful death claim with more than one beneficiary. This cap also increases by $15,000 every year. MD Cts & Jud Pro Code § 3-2A-09(b). The for medical malpractice.

The advocacy group Public Citizen has criticized the idea that damage caps are necessary to control costs. Its data show that malpractice payouts in 2010 were the lowest at any point in the previous twenty years when adjusting for inflation, and the lowest since 1998 in absolute dollars. Annual malpractice payments reportedly decreased by nearly twelve percent between 2000 and 2010, and accounted for only 0.0013% of total health care costs nationwide in 2010. During the same ten-year period, national spending on health care rose by ninety percent.

Complicated Web of Potential Liability in Undetected Carbon Monoxide Deaths at Hotel

December 26, 2013 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

A series of two separate occasions of death by carbon monoxide poisoning in a hotel room provides an overview of a complicated web of potential liability.

While it appears as though lawsuits have yet to be filed on behalf of an older couple and young boy who both died on two separate occasions due to severe carbon monoxide poisoning in a hotel room, the potential for liability of the various parties responsible seems apparent.

The first incident occurred in April, when a couple in their 70s died in their hotel room of unknown causes. Apparently, the fire department did not test the room for any potential gas issues, citing that it was not their responsibility, and also that their vehicles were not at that time equipped with testing equipment.

District Court Dismisses Personal Injury Action under FTCA for Failure to Prove Negligence

December 17, 2013 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

The U.S. United States District Court, W.D. Virginia, Danville Division reached a decision this year in a personal injury lawsuit arising out of the Federal Tort Claims Act, which involved a U.S. Postal Service employee allegedly running over a woman’s foot.

In the case, Pannell v. US, Dist. Ct., WD Va. (2013), the nine year old plaintiff had been sitting on the porch, when she noticed the civilian vehicle that the rural postal carrier drove approaching her grandmother’s house. The plaintiff and her cousin ran across the lawn toward the mailbox, making eye contact with the USPS employee, who also waved at them.

However, as the girls approached the mailbox, the plaintiff fell, and slid such that her legs were under the vehicle. The plaintiff’s cousin attempted unsuccessfully to pull her from under the vehicle, and as a result, as the car drove away, one of the tires ran over the Plaintiff’s right foot.

D.C. District Court Ruling Upholds Assumption of Risk Defense to In-Home Construction Accident Lawsuit

December 10, 2013 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

A recent District of Columbia federal district court case, Bell v. BUILDERS, Dist. Ct., Dist. Col. (2013), gives a helpful overview of the concept of Assumption of Risk as it relates to personal injury claims.

Construction had begun in February of 2009, and plaintiff elected to remain in her house during the construction. One morning in May of 2009, the plaintiff went down stairs in order to investigate a loud sound she had heard. She turned on the lights and walked through her kitchen to look out the sliding glass door into her backyard. Seeing several possums in the backyard, she decided to retrieve her camera from the living room to take some pictures. When she returned with her camera and opened the sliding glass door, she leaned out to take a picture of the animals, when her left ankle became twisted up in the drop cloth on the floor, causing her to fall out the door, and to suffer, “severe, painful, and permanent injuries.”

The plaintiff’s lawsuit stemmed from her assertion that by covering her kitchen floor with a drop cloth, the defendant construction company created a “dangerous and defective condition” that caused her to slip and fall and sustain her injuries. The defendants motioned for summary judgment, asserting the defenses of contributory negligence and assumption of the risk.

U.S. Court of Appeals Decision Affirms Necessity of Certification in Medical Malpractice Claims

December 3, 2013 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit recently made a decision that, while technically routine, has a substantial impact on the individual plaintiff.

The case, LITTLEPAIGE v. U.S., Ct. App. 4th Cir. (2013), was based on the alleged negligence in the care the plaintiff’s husband received at a VA hospital, which resulted in him suffering a hip fracture. The plaintiff’s husband had been placed on a special supervisory list/designation called “falls precaution,” due to his risk of injury. Yet, he was found on the floor twice, once resulting in a hip fracture, which required subsequent surgery, and caused him pain and suffering, among related claims.

The defendants in the case were granted a motion to dismiss the complaint, because the plaintiff failed to meet North Carolina’s certification requirement, mandatory in its medical malpractice claims.

D.C. Court of Appeals Upholds Jury Decision for Consumer in Baseball Mask Product’s Liability Case

November 25, 2013 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

The District of Columbia Court of Appeals ruled earlier this year on a products liability case that attempted to exclude expert testimony regarding defective product design, and implicate the defense of “assumption of risk” in a personal injury case.

The decision, Wilson Sporting Goods Co. v. Hickox, 59 A. 3d 1267 Ct. App. D.C. (2013), dealt with a baseball umpire who became permanently injured as a result of an allegedly defectively designed face mask that he was wearing. The plaintiff, Edwin Hickox, was given the mask by a Wilson representative at an annual retreat for Major League Baseball players. The representative claimed that the mask was a new, safer design.

Several months later, Hickox was wearing the mask while he worked behind the home plate during a game in Washington D.C. Towards the end of the game, he was struck in the mask with a foul ball, the impact of which gave him a concussion, and damaged a joint between the bones in his inner ear. As a result, he now suffers from mild to moderate permanent hearing loss.

Two Lawsuits Accuse Neurosurgeon of Malpractice Following Nerve and Other Injuries

November 18, 2013 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Two lawsuits were filed in recent months alleging that a Texas neurosurgeon caused two patients to suffer serious injuries following the surgeries that he performed on them.

The first lawsuit, which was filed in June, stated that the doctor was supposed to perform a specialized procedure on the plaintiff, but that when she awoke, she had completely lost function in her left quadriceps, preventing her from being able to bear any weight on her left leg.

According to her lawsuit, the woman underwent a second operation, intended to counteract the problems from the initial surgery. The second surgeon reported finding “severe malpositioning of the surgical implants,” which were responsible for causing injury to the plaintiff’s nerves. Despite the subsequent surgery, the plaintiff still reportedly suffers from chronic pain and difficulty walking.

Punkin Chunkin Considers Move Due to Liability Concerns

November 11, 2013 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

The organizers of the popular Fall related event “Punkin Chunkin” are considering relocating out of Delaware due to concerns related to liability insurance and related costs.

The president of the Punkin Chunkin, which is a nonprofit organization, has begun to reconsider its location, taking into account its costs for services from governmental agencies (safety and parking coordination) within the state, in addition to liability limitations for lawsuits related to the festival’s activities. While the festival itself has reportedly grown by 56% over the past six years, the costs associated with the governmental agencies have reportedly grown some 600%. All proceeds from the event fund subsequent events, or are donated to various charities and/or scholarship funds.

Despite the costs of the various services, which also include on site emergency crews, organizers for the event acknowledge the need to have these agencies present on-site. The ability to respond immediately was mentioned specifically in regards to a car fire that occurred in the parking lot and an ATV accident in a past year.