Maryland Accident Law Blog

Maryland Residents Are Eligible to Join Roundup Lawsuits

August 25, 2021 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

The manufacturers of consumer products have a duty to perform reasonable tests to ensure that their product is safe for use. In the event that a product may be dangerous to use, manufacturers are required to adequately warn consumers of the dangers that are known. manufacturers can be held accountable for significant damages in the event that their products harm people. If manufacturers fail to disclose known risks of a product, they could be required to pay damages well in excess of the actual harm caused to a victim by their product. The California Court of Appeals recently affirmed a substantial verdict against Monsanto, the manufacturer of the popular weed control product Roundup, which contained a significant amount of punitive damages against the company.

The plaintiffs in the recently decided case are a married couple who used roundup on their properties from the 1980s until 2015. Based on the information contained in the packaging and from advertisements, the plaintiffs did not think that Roundup was a dangerous chemical, and they used it liberally on their properties without gloves or other protective equipment. After using the product for years, both plaintiffs developed non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, a type of cancer that has been linked to the use of Roundup and other herbicides. The plaintiffs sued the defendant in state court, alleging that the product was dangerous and defective and that the defendant failed to warn consumers about dangers that they knew of.

What Was the Outcome of the Roundup Trial?

During a six-week trial, witnesses testified that the defendant had access to information that their product caused cancer, and failed to warn consumers of the risk. Additionally, witnesses testified that the use of gloves and other safety equipment could significantly reduce the risk of cancer, however, the product label did not advise consumers to use protective equipment. Witnesses also testified that the plaintiffs’ use of Roundup was a substantial contributing factor in the development of their cancer. The jury ultimately ruled in favor of the plaintiffs on all claims, initially awarding tens of millions of compensatory damages and $2 billion in punitive damages against the company. The punitive damages were reduced by the court, and the final verdict totaled approximately $86 million.

Third-Party Liability after Maryland Workplace Accident

August 18, 2021 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Maryland’s Workers’ Compensation Commission (MWCC) provides compensation to workers who suffer injuries on the job. The coverage only includes medical care and some wage benefits. However, the system rarely covers the extent of injuries and subsequent damages that Maryland workers often face after a workplace accident. In most cases, workers’ compensation is the sole remedy for Maryland workers who suffer injuries at work. The only exceptions include when the victim’s employer engaged in intentional or willful conduct.

While the law limits many victims, there may be additional avenues of relief. For instance, an injured worker may be able to file a lawsuit against a negligent third party that caused their accident. These claims are distinct from workers’ compensation and allow victims to go through the traditional civil court claims process. A third-party claim may be relevant in cases involving:

Independent contractors;

Responsibility for Maryland Car Accidents Caused by Bad Weather

August 11, 2021 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Most Maryland car accidents involve a number of contributing factors that led to the final collision. Courts and insurance adjusters will look to the totality of the circumstances when making determinations regarding fault and liability. Several environmental factors may come into play when evaluating an accident. In most cases, an outside influence, such as weather, impacted the accident. However, it is essential to note that an unavoidable weather event does not necessarily remove responsibility from an at-fault driver. While bad weather may exacerbate an accident, drivers still maintain the duty of care to modify their driving to adjust to the changing weather conditions.

Bad or unexpected weather can cause a chain reaction of events that can cause catastrophic injuries to other motorists, passengers, and bystanders. For example, a recent sandstorm resulted in a deadly pileup. An out-of-state highway patrol officer explained that a 22-vehicle crash occurred after strong winds caused a sand and dust storm. Many drivers began stopping their vehicles because they could not see the road.

The sudden stopping caused various collisions, including accidents between large tractor-trailers and smaller sedans. Ultimately, eight people suffered fatal injuries in the accident, including four children. Authorities believe that a thunderstorm about 90 miles away from the dust storm stirred up dirt and dust that led to the sandstorm. The Weather Service advised residents that the wind surges could reach over 60 miles per hour. Accident scene photos depicted piles of wreckage and vehicles pinned underneath large trucks. However, these extreme weather events are becoming more common as the United States has been encountering several droughts.

Motorcycle Accident Passenger Rights in Maryland

July 31, 2021 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Motorcycle accidents are one of the most dangerous incidents and often result in serious injuries and fatalities. According to the most recent statistics by the Maryland Department of Transportation (MDT), Maryland motorcycle accidents accounted for about 2% of the total number of accidents in the state. However, motorcycle crashes comprised almost 15% of all the fatal accidents in the state. Moreover, four out of five of the passengers killed in these accidents were not wearing any safety equipment. In combination with the steady increase in motorcycle accidents, these startling statistics highlight the importance of motorcycle safety for both operators and passengers.

Motorcycle passengers and operators are more vulnerable to serious injuries because of the lack of protection from impacts with other vehicles or objects. Moreover, motorcycle passengers are often thrown from the bikes after a collision occurs. These situations can result in the passenger being run over by oncoming traffic, slammed into the concrete, or thrown into a guard rail or similar static object.

For example, a news report recently described a tragic motorcycle accident that involved a bike and a sedan. According to a preliminary investigation, the motorcycle crossed through a center line and slammed head-on with the sedan. Law enforcement reported that the motorcycle driver suffered serious injuries, and the passenger died.

Over a Dozen Injured in Washington, D.C. Bus Crash

July 25, 2021 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Many Maryland and Washington D.C. residents count on public transportation in their daily lives for work and recreation. At a minimum, we expect that public transportation will be safe and reliable. Unfortunately, this was not the case when a metro bus crashed earlier this month, causing significant injuries.

In an event that emergency crews described as a “mass casualty incident,” at least 13 people were injured. Although reports on the extent of the injuries vary, it appears at this time that at least two people were seriously hurt. About seven people had less serious injuries, and one individual refused treatment altogether.

At this time, the cause of the bus accident is unknown. In many cases, however, when a bus crashes, someone is legally responsible. The people injured in the crash—including any people who might have suffered an emotional injury from the trauma of the incident—may have a claim for monetary compensation against those responsible for the accident.

Child Dies in Amusement Park Accident

July 16, 2021 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

There is no greater tragedy than the death of a child. When a child’s death results from negligence, their grieving family can begin to seek closure through a wrongful death lawsuit.

Unfortunately, one family was left grieving earlier this month when an 11-year-old boy was killed at an Iowa amusement park. Reports say that the boy passed away after the raft he was on overturned at the park. Although first responders and witnesses arrived to render care to the six passengers aboard the raft, the boy could not be saved. Several other passengers were hospitalized following the incident, including a second child who was said to be in critical condition.

According to reports, officials are still in the early stages of investigating this amusement park disaster. A key question could be whether negligence was a factor in the child’s death.

Using Expert Testimony in a Maryland Accident Case

July 10, 2021 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Expert testimony is useful in many Maryland accident cases, and in some cases, expert testimony is essential. Under Maryland Rule of Evidence 5-702, expert testimony may be admitted if the court finds that the testimony will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue. In determining whether to admit expert testimony, a court will consider whether the witness is qualified as an expert, whether the testimony is appropriate, and whether there is a sufficient factual basis to support the testimony.

A recent decision of the Supreme Court of Virginia considered whether a trial court properly excluded expert testimony in a wrongful death case arising from “an unexplainable single-vehicle accident” in which both occupants died. According to the decision, one morning, a tractor-trailer owned by a company left its lane of travel on a highway and rolled down an embankment in Rockbridge County, Virginia. The crash killed both of the occupants of the vehicle: an employee of the company, who was transporting fertilizer, and the plaintiff, who was a friend of the employee and accompanied the employee on the day of the crash.

The plaintiff (administrator of the friend’s estate) filed a complaint against the employer and against the administrator of the employee’s estate, seeking damages for wrongful death.

Maryland Product Liability Claims After a Company Issues a Recall

July 1, 2021 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

A product recall may allow consumers who purchased the recalled product to have the product replaced, repaired, and/or refunded, depending on the recall. Yet, those remedies often do not compensate consumers to the extent of their injuries. Even if a consumer is able to receive a replacement, repair, or refund through a recall, an affected consumer still is able to seek compensation through a Maryland product liability claim.

What Are the Different Types of Product Liability Claims?

There are different types of product liability claims that may be filed based on a defective product. In a strict liability claim, a plaintiff must show that the product was defective when it left the defendant’s control, its condition did not substantially change before it reached the consumer, the product was unreasonably dangerous, and the defect caused the plaintiff’s injuries. A plaintiff does not need to show that the defendant acted negligently in some way in a strict liability claim. A strict liability claim may be based on the defective manufacturing, defective design, or inadequate warnings or instructions of the product. A product liability claim may also be based on general negligence principles or breach of warranty.

Third-Party Construction Site Accident Claims in Maryland

June 24, 2021 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Construction is one of the most dangerous industries in the United States, and Maryland construction site accidents result in thousands of serious injuries and fatalities every year. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) provides safety practices and regulations to mitigate the danger in these workplaces. These regulations provide mandatory training, supervising, and inspections of workplaces. Despite the rigorous training many employers and employees must complete every year, accidents continue to rise.

These accidents can result in serious injuries related to traumatic brain injuries, spinal cord damage, broken bones, lacerations, electrocution, paralysis, and more. Treatment and rehabilitation for these conditions often far exceed the amount that health insurance and workers’ compensation covers. Further, the law bars many employees from filing lawsuits against their employers. As such, it is essential that injury victims and their families understand all potential defendants in these cases.

These claims typically fall under the purview of third-party claims. Third-party claims work to bridge the gap between what an employee’s workers’ compensation claim pays out and the residual damages they incurred. These claims are appropriate when a non-employer third party was at fault or partially at fault for the accident and resulting injuries.

Proving a Maryland Accident Case Through Circumstantial Evidence

June 17, 2021 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Many Maryland accident victims do not have direct evidence of a defendant’s negligence. That is, the plaintiff does not have direct proof of the cause of the accident. In these cases, accident victims must prove the case through circumstantial evidence of the defendant’s fault, relying on inferences of the defendant’s fault.

How Does a Maryland Accident Victim Prove a Personal Injury Claim?

In a Maryland negligence claim, a plaintiff must generally show that the defendant had a duty to protect the plaintiff from injury, the defendant breached that duty, the plaintiff suffered an injury or loss, and the loss or injury was proximately caused by the defendant’s breach of its duty. Proof of causation may rest on direct evidence, circumstantial evidence, or a combination of the two. A negligence claim can rest solely on circumstantial evidence. However, the circumstantial evidence must create “a reasonable likelihood or probability rather than a possibility” that supports a “rational basis of causation” and cannot be based solely on speculation.

In a recent case before a state appeals court, the court considered whether there was sufficient evidence of causation in a case that rested on circumstantial evidence. In that case, the plaintiff went to a medical center to visit a patient. As she was walking to the patient’s room, the plaintiff slipped and fell in front of a utility-room door and fractured her kneecap. She alleged that the floor was wet and sued the Medical Center for negligence. The case went to trial, and a jury found in the plaintiff’s favor and awarded her more than a million dollars. The defendant appeal, arguing in part that there was insufficient evidence of a wet floor or that the medical center knew of a wet substance on the floor.