Maryland Accident Law Blog

Maryland High Court Upholds Contributory Negligence Rule

July 12, 2013 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Maryland’s highest state court, the Court of Appeals, ruled earlier this month to uphold Maryland’s long standing, yet uncommon, manner of handling negligence cases.

The rule it upheld, referred to as the Contributory Negligence Rule, prevents plaintiffs from recovering anything in a negligence cause of action, if they are shown to be even one percent at fault for the incident.

The judge who penned the 5-2 majority decision stated that it is the court’s opinion that the legislature should decide the question of whether another model of determining liability would be more appropriate.

For example, an alternative model could require juries to allocate blame based on potential responsibility, and calculate damages according to that ratio.

While the Maryland legislature has reportedly considered changing the law several times since the 1960s, it has never done so.

Maryland first adopted contributory negligence in 1847 by way of a court ruling. It was once a widely used way of evaluating negligence cases, but has largely become the minority approach. Forty six states have switched to alternative views of fault, some of which allow juries to allocate fault according to responsibility.

The dissenting judges in the case referred to the rule as a “dinosaur” that should be rendered extinct.

Maryland Highway Worker Killed on Route 216 in Scaggsville

July 5, 2013 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Howard County police have released information regarding the traffic accident that left one 40 year old highway worker from Baltimore dead.

Police say the man, who was a state highway contractor, was closing a lane of state Route 216 in the Scaggsville area when he was hit by a Chevrolet Malibu. The man was reportedly wearing a reflective shirt as he placed cones in the road just prior to the collision. The worker was later pronounced dead on the scene.

According to authorities, the juvenile driver of the Malibu remained at the scene in order to cooperate with the investigation. So far no charges have been filed.

An administrator of the Maryland State Highway Administration released a statement expressing condolences to the victim’s family, and reminding drivers to reduce speeds and drive attentively in order to keep highway workers safe.

According to one report, in 2011 alone 688 people were injured and three were killed as a result of Maryland work zone related crashes. Nationwide, it is estimated that over 1,000 people are killed each year in work zone related crashes, with a majority of the victims being motorists or their passengers.

An investigation into the circumstances surrounding the crash is ongoing.

Second Lawsuit Filed Against Monster Beverage Corp.

June 28, 2013 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

A mother filed suit against Monster Beverage Corp., this week, alleging that her teenage son’s death from cardiac arrhythmia was attributable to his habitual consumption of the company’s energy drink.

The woman’s son was taken to the hospital for cardiac arrest, and died shortly thereafter. Monster released a statement in response, claiming that there was no causal evidence that their beverage led to the cardiac arrest.

Another similar lawsuit was filed against Monster, on behalf of a 14 year old girl from Maryland who died after consuming two 24 ounce cans of the energy drink. In that case, Monster claimed in defense that there was no blood test performed to confirm the alleged “caffeine toxicity,” which the suit claimed, but rather the cause of death was ruled natural causes, hastened by pre-existing conditions.

The attorney representing both of the families stated that the allegations claim that the plaintiffs’ deaths were caused by the energy drinks, and more specifically the company’s failure to warn about the dangers of consuming the product.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration have begun an investigation into the reported deaths of individuals tied to consumption of energy drinks, including allegedly five blaming consumption of Monster beverages as the primary cause of death.

Additionally, Dennis Herrera, the San Francisco city attorney, is allegedly also suing the company, claiming it markets its energy drinks to children and that the products present potentially severe health risks.

Maryland Boat Explosion Hurts 6 Children

June 21, 2013 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Local Maryland authorities reported that late last month, six people were hospitalized in connection with a boat explosion that occurred at a Maryland Marina. Six children aged 13 and younger were injured, according to government officials.

According to one witness’s account, a dad was seen picking kids up and throwing them into the water, in addition to people frantically scrambling to get off of the boat as quickly as possible. People then tried to swim from the boat back to the dock for safety. As black smoke billowed out the back of the boat, the same dad reportedly attempted to throw life vests to the children in the water below.

Two of the children were then transported to the Johns Hopkins burn center for treatment. Thankfully, no one suffered life-threatening injuries.

The Maryland Natural Resources Police is leading the investigation into the accident. So far, authorities know that the boat–with its nine passengers–refueled at the marina, and the boat then stalled when it left the dock shortly after noon. The explosion reportedly occurred when the captain of the 32 foot vessel attempted to refire the engines.

The incident took place at the Oak Grove Marina near Edgewater, Maryland, which is approximately 30 minutes east of Washington on the South River. The cause of the explosion remains unknown.

Police Trainee Shot in Head Files Negligence Lawsuit Against Baltimore & City Police Department

June 14, 2013 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Several news outlets have reported that a man who was shot in the head during the course of a police training exercise in Maryland earlier this year has filed a multi-million dollar lawsuit against Baltimore and the Baltimore Police Department.

The victim was working as a campus police trainee for the University of Maryland, Baltimore. He was injured when another officer reportedly used a “live” weapon to scare him away from a window during the course of training. Due to the officer’s alleged intentional or negligent conduct in firing the weapon in the man’s direction, he was critically injured. He has since lost an eye, and has been undergoing rehabilitation.

The lawsuit, which accuses the city of selecting a dangerous training site, and negligence in failing to ensure safety procedures were followed, names as defendants the individual officers involved, the City, and the Police Department, and seeks millions of dollars in damages.

The plaintiff’s attorney stated that, “His motor skills, his memory and all of those things are affected, and he will be impaired and have to receive medical attention for the rest of his life,”

Additionally disconcerting is the fact that according to the plaintiff’s attorneys, a similar style of training was conducted with live weapons just a few weeks ago. Luckily no one was hurt during that incident.

Baltimore Sun Reader Suggests Penalties for Negligent Drivers at Railroad Crossings

June 6, 2013 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Following last week’s train derailment and the resulting damage that it caused, the safety of trains and railroad crossings has been on the nation’s mind, but especially for those living within Maryland.

One such response followed when a woman from Abingdon wrote in to the Baltimore Sun to express her opinion regarding safety concerns at railroad crossings. The woman stated that she was writing in response to an article published on June 5, entitled “High risks at railroad crossings”.

In her letter, the woman laments that she feels as though the article was placing the blame for these sorts of accidents primarily on either the railroad, or state governmental authorities. In her view, the blame is more properly placed upon individuals driving negligently.

Specifically, she suggests Maryland adopting a law that would require drivers to stop and look before crossing railroad tracks. In order to enforce this, she further suggests video cameras at un-gated crossings, with accompanying steep fines for drivers who fail to observe the requirements.

Commonwealth Court Panel Rules Maryland Couple Cannot Sue PennDOT

May 27, 2013 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

A three judge Commonwealth Court panel recently ruled that a Maryland couple cannot sue the Pennsylvania State Department of Transportation for the injuries they suffered during an accident that occurred in 2007.

According to state police, the couple was riding a Harley-Davidson MC at approximately 12:30 p.m. July 22, 2007, when they swerved suddenly in order to avoid a vehicle that careened into their path, and attempted to pass it on the right hand side. Police said that the motorcycle then veered off the road, striking several different obstructions, then became airborne, and traveled approximately 10 feet before coming to a stop.

In the published opinion, the panel ruled that state law precludes the couple from suing PennDOT for the injuries they suffered while riding a motorcycle, because they had left the paved road when the accident occurred. Therefore, because the state has no duty to maintain any area beyond the portion of the road regularly used for or intended for travel, the exception to sovereign immunity (which allows for the ability to sue the state with its consent) does not apply, and the motion to dismiss the lawsuit was thereby granted.

This case is an unfortunate example of what can result when motorcycle accidents happen. It seems clear from the facts that the accident was initially caused due to the vehicle that first swerved into the path of this Maryland couple. However, the actual cause, or in this case proximate cause, of the undisclosed injuries suffered by the couple were the result of the issues with the roadway–presumably the pipe and cement fixture that they hit off of the road. The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania is one of two intermediate appellate courts in the state, meaning that the couple may potentially have the opportunity to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Maryland Man’s Estate Recovers $3 Million for his Wrongful Death by Electrocution

May 20, 2013 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

The West Virginia Record recently reported about the disposition of a lawsuit regarding the wrongful death of a local man, who was electrocuted while working.

The decedent’s wife originally filed the lawsuit in 2011 on behalf of husband’s estate against Potomac Construction Industries and Sumersett Construction. The man was killed in Harpers Ferry in October of 2010. Among other claims, the lawsuit alleged that Potomac Construction failed to comply with relevant state and federal safety statutes, and negligently caused the unlawful emission of high voltage electricity.

The complaint sought economic damages in excess of $3 million. Sumersett and New Era settled for $1.8 million, and Potomac Construction later settled for $1.5 million. Thus, the aggregate sum of the settlements was in excess of $3 million.

The exact breakdown of the settlement remains unclear, although the victim left behind his wife and a young child. Under Maryland law, recoverable claims in these types of cases include things such as loss of companionship, lost wages, funeral expenses, and in some cases punitive damages, when there is evidence of blameworthy conduct. A final settlement is an agreement that the party is being compensated for all of the damages suffered, as a final disposition of the matter. This means that no further lawsuits or other legal claims may be pursued regarding the matter.

Baltimore to Pay $100k in School Bus Death Lawsuit

May 13, 2013 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Last week, the City of Baltimore Board of Estimates voted unanimously to pay $100,000 as part of a settlement in a negligence lawsuit relating to the death of a young special needs boy who died after jumping from a school bus.

The $100,000 settlement relates only to the allegations made against the city school system, who hired the bus company to transport the boy to and from school. The family has a separate claim against the bus company, an independent company.

The lawsuit alleges that school officials knew the boy struggled with “impulse control,” and that he had a history of attempted exiting from the bus, yet proper procedures were not followed, and he was not restrained on the day of the fatal accident. He died just two days after the accident, as a result of the head injuries he sustained.

According to the suit, there were multiple prior incidents demonstrating the boy’s behavior on the bus. These included the boy standing at the rear of the bus during the entire duration of the ride and, on a separate occasion, an attempted jump out the back door.

The lawsuit alleges that, on the day of the accident, the boy first attempted to open the front door of the bus, but the bus driver motioned at him with his hat, and continued to drive. The boy then allegedly walked past several aides, none of whom made any attempt to stop him, and then opened an emergency exit at the back of the bus, and jumped from four feet in the air into oncoming traffic. The bus driver continued driving, at a speed of 30 mph.

Surgery on Wrong Side of Woman’s Brain Prompts Malpractice Suit

May 3, 2013 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

A medical malpractice lawsuit was filed recently against a St. Lois hospital and neurosurgeon, by the family of a woman alleging that the defendants operated on the wrong side of her brain and skull.

According to the complaint, the patient, was scheduled for a “left-sided craniotomy bypass.” Instead, the suit alleges, she received a “right-sided craniotomy surgical procedure.” A second surgery was reportedly performed six days later on the correct side of the woman’s skull following the discovery of the error.

According to her lawyer, the woman is now unable to speak intelligibly.

The suit alleges that the hospital and surgeon were negligent and careless, which led to the incorrect side surgery.

Specifically, the suit alleges that, “Before the incorrect surgery, plaintiff was mobile, cognizant and able to care for herself,” but after the allegedly botched job, “[she] requires around-the-clock care for her basic needs. … (She) will also continue to suffer from emotional distress, anxiety, disfigurement and depression.”
The patient underwent the surgery because she suffered from a series of mini-strokes, and was hoping that the craniotomy bypass surgery would prevent future strokes.