August 11, 2008

Tractor Trailer Plunges of Bay Bridge

The driver of a tractor trailer was tragically killed on Sunday morning when his 18-wheeler plunged into the Chesapeake Bay. According to an article in the Baltimore Sun, the accident occurred on the east bridge when a Camaro and the truck collided. The tractor trailer spun out of control, hit the jersey wall and plunged into the Chesapeake Bay. The driver of the tractor trailer was killed and two passengers in the Camaro were flown to University of Maryland, Shock Trauma.

The accident occurred during a time of two-way traffic. In this case, the west bridge was closed for repair so traffic traveling in opposite directions were using the west bridge. Authorities are still investigating the accident and the cause is still undetermined.

Lawyers in our law firm who regularly handle trucking accidents advise me that the investigation may take weeks. The driving and cargo logs of the truck must be reviewed. In addition, the investigation will also look into whether the tractor trailer was in compliance with numerous Department of Transportation (DOT) regulations.

From an attorney's perspective, investigation a trucking accident such as this requires unique knowledge of the nuances and regulations involving interstate trucking. Our lawyers have successfully handled several catastrophic trucking accidents as well as prosecuted trucking companies for failure criminal violations. For more information, please contact us for a complementary consultation.

August 8, 2008

Maryland Law of Autopsies

Many Marylanders and even experienced personal injury lawyers are unclear of the law and policies regarding autopsies in Maryland. Below, in question and answer format, is a clear and concise discussion to the most common questions:

Q: What is an autopsy?

A: An autopsy is a series of tests and examinations performed on the body and its internal organs to determine the presence of an injury and/or to identify any disease that may have caused or contributed to the death of a person where the cause is not apparent. Additionally, special tests are performed to check for the presence of infectious diseases, alcohol and/or drugs.

Q: Why are they performed?

A: In Maryland, a death certificate must be completed by a doctor for all deaths before the body can be sent to the funeral home. When the person has a family doctor and dies from natural causes, the doctor can complete the death certificate and an autopsy may be unnecessary. However, if the person is not under the care of a physician or the death appears to be unusual or suspicious in nature or State law requires it, the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner must be notified to begin an investigation and determine the cause of death so that the death certificate can be completed. Similarly, in some situations, a hospital or State-licensed physician may, with the permission of the decedent’s family, perform an autopsy.

Q: In Maryland, who decides if there will be one?

A: This answer depends on who the decedent was and the circumstances surrounding their death. In Maryland, an individual dying as a result of a homicide, poisoning, suicide, criminal abortion, rape, therapeutic misadventure, drowning, or dying in a suspicious or unusual manner, or a death of an apparently healthy individual or a case which is dead on arrival at the hospital shall be examined by the medical examiner in the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner in Baltimore. In addition, in the case of a firefighter who dies in the line of duty, or a person who suffers a fire-related death, Maryland law dictates that the medical examiner must conduct an autopsy. Lastly, if the decedent died in a State-funded or State-operated facility, and the death appears unusual or suspicious in nature, the death shall be investigated by the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner. By contrast, a State licensed physician or hospital pathologist may perform an autopsy, with permission from the decedent’s family, on “non-medical examiner cases”, such as a stillbirth or neonatal death, a hospital death in which the cause of death has been established by a hospital physician and is due to disease, or when a decedent is dead on arrival to the hospital but the physician who pronounces death has previously treated the patient. Finally, when the decedent has a family doctor and dies from a natural cause such as from a disease, the family or hospital doctor can complete the death certificate and an autopsy may not be necessary, unless requested by the family.

Q: Can the family or anyone else request or prevent them?

A: Before an autopsy can be performed in the instance of a non-medical examiner death (death during hospital stay), the next of kin must grant permission. However, when state law requires a medical examiner to perform an autopsy, family permission is not required. A family may object to an autopsy because of religious beliefs. In this event, the Chief Medical Examiner must review the matter and determine, usually after speaking with the next of kin, whether it is absolutely necessary to perform an autopsy over a family’s objections. If the Chief Medical Examiner determines an autopsy is required, the family may ask the court to intervene and grant an injunction to prevent the procedure until a hearing can be scheduled. This will, however, delay the release of the body to the funeral home.

Continue reading "Maryland Law of Autopsies" »

July 30, 2008

Major Injury, but Minor Property Damage in Automobile Collision?

It’s a familiar, but fallacious argument. A favorite of defense counsel and insurance companies in automobile accident cases: “There was a minor impact, therefore there can only be minor injury, if any injury at all.” Defense lawyers often try to introduce into evidence distorted, grainy or out of focus photographs of minimal property damage without providing any expert testimony about the causal relationship between the amount of property damage and the victim’s injuries. The purpose of this tactic is to disprove by false implication what has been proven by medical evidence; to rebut the testimony of a licensed physician that has reached an opinion to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that the victim’s injuries were caused by the accident in question. There is no mention of the sudden and very high energy forces that are transmitted through the vehicle in the milliseconds after the impact. No mention of the fact that most modern cars are built to withstand a 10-15 mile per hour rear impact without suffering significant property damage, particularly if you’re dealing with an SUV or truck.

Armed only with poor quality photos, too many defense counsel will attempt to manipulate the ignorance (or prejudice) of would be jurors. Such a defense lawyer hopes to prove by innuendo what they know they can’t prove legitimately: minimal damage to a vehicle equates to minimal damage to a human in the car.

In reality, a crash with very little visible property damage can cause extensive, painful and permanent injuries. Crash impact forces are transmitted into sudden and high energy forces causing unexpected acceleration of the subject vehicle, while the occupants of the vehicle (heads, necks, etc.) try to stay in place as their seat-belted bodies are thrust forward by the impact. This sequence of events can lead to a myriad of injuries, including, strained or torn ligaments, weakened connective tissue, bulging or blown discs, hyperextension/hyperflexion of the vertebrae and other painful conditions.

Don’t find yourself caught in the defense lawyer’s trap. Contact an experienced Maryland plaintiff's personal injury lawyer for a free consultation.

July 29, 2008

Expanding Potential Personal Injury Recoveries in Maryland With Negligent Entrustment Theory

Under Maryland law, an individual or company that entrusts a motor vehicle to another person with knowledge that such person has a propensity for negligent or reckless driving may be held liable for injuries subsequently caused by that person in a motor vehicle collision. For example, a parent that has given a vehicle to a child as a birthday gift (or even if the parent has simply permitted the use of a family vehicle) with knowledge that the child has reckless driving habits may be held liable for personal injuries caused by the child in a motor vehicle collision. The child’s youth, maturity and inexperience behind the wheel may be relevant factors to consider in the appropriate case. Typically, in order to recover under a theory of negligent entrustment it must be shown that the supplier of the vehicle knew or should have known that the driver would operate the vehicle in a manner that posed an unreasonable risk of harm to others.

In some instances, this theory of recovery may apply to an employer that provides an employee with permission to use a company vehicle with knowledge that the employee-driver would be incompetent or reckless behind the wheel. A key component to this theory of liability is the degree of control over the vehicle exercised by the supplier of the vehicle at the time of the accident. The more control exercised by the supplier the better the chance for succeeding on a negligent entrustment claim. In certain circumstances, negligent entrustment can dramatically expand the opportunity to fully and adequately compensate a victim of personal injury.

Experienced Maryland plaintiff's personal injury lawyers know that it is essential to evaluate whether a negligent entrustment claim can and should be pursued in the appropriate case. Please feel free to contact an experienced personal injury attorney at www.mdattorney.com for a free consultation.

July 24, 2008

Maryland Injury Law-When is an Employer Responsible When a Negligent Employee Causes an Accident?

Experienced Maryland plaintiff's personal injury lawyers know to sue the employer when its employee commits an act of negligence causing personal injury. Often times the injured victim can recover damages from the employer if the tortuous act was committed by an employee acting within the scope of the employment relationship. In Maryland, this is called the doctrine of respondeat superior.

The doctrine of respondeat superior, in Maryland, allows an employer to be held vicariously liable for the tortuous conduct of its employee when that employee was acting within the scope of the employment relationship. With regard to the negligent use of motor vehicles in a respondeat superior claim, the State of Maryland recognizes that a master can be held liable for the negligent operation of a servant's motor vehicle if the master expressly or impliedly consents to the use of the automobile, and......had the right to control the servant in its operation, or else the use of the automobile was of such vital importance in furthering the master's business that his control over it might reasonably be inferred. Thus, the doctrine of respondeat superior may be properly invoked if the master has expressly or impliedly, authorized the [servant] to use his personal vehicle in the execution of his duties, and the employee is in fact engaged in such endeavors at the time of the accident.

Continue reading "Maryland Injury Law-When is an Employer Responsible When a Negligent Employee Causes an Accident? " »

July 24, 2008

Maryland Driver of Motorcycle Killed

A Maryland man was tragically killed yesterday when the motorcycle he was driving was struck head-on by a car that crossed a double yellow line in Carroll County, Maryland. The Baltimore Sun reports that the victim was flown to Maryland Shock Trauma Center in Baltimore and died shortly thereafter. The driver of the vehicle that crossed the double yellow line was 80 years old.

I have represented many seriously injured victims and fatalities from motorcycle accidents in Maryland. Motorcycle accident cases are often tragic because the injuries sustained by the cyclist are often exponentially worse due to the lack of protection. Fortunately Maryland requires motorcycle riders to wear a helmet, but often the head injuries-even with a helmet-are devastating.

Continue reading "Maryland Driver of Motorcycle Killed" »

July 22, 2008

$21.62 Million Jury Verdict Against Driver Talking on Cell Phone

A Florida jury returned a verdict of $21.62 million in a wrongful death and survivor action where a 32 year old woman was rear-ended by another driver talking on her cell phone while driving. The force of the rear-end collision pushed the decedent’s car across the median strip and into oncoming traffic. She was killed when an SUV struck her vehicle head-on.

The decedent’s husband, individually and on behalf of his wife’s estate, and their two minor children sued the driver of the vehicle and the company that owned the driver’s car. The vehicle had been given to the driver’s husband for company business.

Incredibly, the defendants claimed that the rear-impact was minor and was not forceful enough to push the decedent’s vehicle across the median strip. The defendants argued that the decedent had accidentally accelerated after the impact and that the car that struck her when her vehicle was pushed into oncoming traffic failed to take appropriate action to avoid the collision. The defendant driver also maintained that she wasn’t talking on her cell phone at the time of the collision. The plaintiffs, however, subpoenaed the driver’s cell phone records, which indicated that she was talking on the phone with her husband at the precise time of the collision.

In Maryland, many serious car accidents have been caused by drivers talking on their cell phone. Unfortunately, it is an occurrence that seems to happen with increasing frequency despite the devastating and tragic consequences. In many automobile accident cases, it is important to subpoena the defendant driver’s cell phone records to determine whether improper and negligent cell phone use may have been a cause or contributing factor in the collision. Many states outlaw the use of cell phones while operating a motor vehicle. While Maryland law does not prohibit the use of a cell phone while driving, such use may be evidence of negligence in certain circumstances.

If you or a loved one have been injured in an automible accident, and you suspect that cell phone use may have been a cause of contributing factor in the accident, please contact an experienced trial attorney at www.mdattorney.com for a free consultation.

July 22, 2008

Recovering for injuries suffered in an accident involving a company vehicle.

Experienced Maryland Personal Injury Attorneys know the various ways to recover for injuries suffered if involved in an accident with a vehicle owned by a business or company. If a Maryland resident is injured when their vehicle is struck by a company or business vehicle driven by another person, there are several sources of recovery for their injuries, including the company's insurance, the other driver's insurance or their own insurance company. If a Maryland resident is driving a company vehicle that is involved in an accident, they potentially may recover from; 1) Workers' Compensation, 2) the other driver's insurance company or 3) their own insurance company.

Continue reading "Recovering for injuries suffered in an accident involving a company vehicle." »

July 21, 2008

Maryland Personal Injury Settlements Involving Minors

Personal injury settlements involving minors in Maryland are strictly governed by the legislature to protect the minor. Under Title 13, Section 402 of the Estates and Trusts Article, Annotated Code of Maryland “it is public policy of the state that any substantial sum of money paid to a minor because of a claim, action, or judgment in tort should be preserved for the benefit of the minor.”

That according to Title 13, Section 403 of the Estates and Trusts Article, Annotated Code of Maryland, “if a minor or any other person in whose name a claim in tort is made or judgment in tort obtained on behalf of a minor recovers a net sum of $5,000 or more, the person responsible for the payment of the money shall make payment by check made to the order of ‘(name of trustee), trustee under Title 13 of the Estates and Trusts Article, Annotated Code of Maryland, for (name of minor), minor’”.

Simply put, under Maryland law, the proceeds of a personal injury settlement for a minor are to be preserved for the minor until the minor turns eighteen.

I have handled a number of cases in which clients have contacted me when they have learned that their settlement funds have been pilfered by unscrupulous attorneys, parents or guardians. In addition to possible recourse against the attorney for failing to comply with the Maryland Code, there is possible recourse against the bank where the settlement funds were deposited and the insurer who initially issued the check.

If you are the minor-victim of a personal injury settlement whose funds have been pilfered or stolen, please contact me for a free consultation.

July 18, 2008

Train Accident Lawyer on Private v. Public Crossings

As an experienced Maryland trial lawyer who has been regularly representing victims and their families in fatal and catastrophic train accidents since 1995, there has been an important but gradual change in Maryland law over the past several decades. This change is in the area of private v. public railroad crossings and how Maryland and other jurisdictions view them as the classification affects victims of train accidents.

The duties owed to individuals at private crossings as compared to public crossings were first enunciated by a Maryland court in Annapolis & B. S. L. R. Co. v. Pumphrey, 72 Md. 82, 19 A. 8, 9 (1890). That Court stated:
There is no statute of this state which imposes upon the (railroad) the duty to give signals of the approach of its trains to a private road or farm crossing. Numerous cases in this state and elsewhere have held that a failure on the part of a railroad company to give proper warnings of the approach of its trains to a public highway or thorofare crossing is an act of culpable negligence; but we are aware of no decision which fixes upon a defendant the like consequence for omitting such warnings as to farm crossings. On the contrary, it has been determined twice by this court that no such obligation exists.

Id.
Furthermore, Maryland traditionally held that where there was no proof of a legalized public crossing, individuals on railroad tracks were considered trespassers. Baltimore v. Welch, 114 Md. 536, 80 A. 170 (1911). The Welch Court stated:
The duty of those in charge of moving railway trains to keep a lookout for and exert care to avoid injuring persons at railway crossings and on public highways where such persons have a right to be, and may be expected to be found is entirely different from the care required of them in respect to the possible presence of trespassers on the railway tracks where, having no right to be, they are not expected to be found. We have repeatedly held . . . that those in charge of the trains have no duty to anticipate that persons will unlawfully go upon the tracks, and consequently the failure to guard in advance against the possible or probable results of such unexpected wrongful presence of persons on the tracks does not constitute negligence on the part of the railroad company whose liability to use care to avoid injuring any person so trespassing begins only when their agents are made aware of his presence and peril.

80 A. at 173 (emphasis added).

Continue reading "Train Accident Lawyer on Private v. Public Crossings" »

July 18, 2008

Contributory Negligence in Maryland

As an experienced Maryland personal injury lawyer, it is frustrating to that Maryland still follows the arcane doctrine of contributory negligence. As one of four jurisdictions in the United States that follows this doctrine, contributory negligence in Maryland causes congestion in the Maryland trial courts and unfair results for deserving victims.

The doctrine of contributory negligence basically says that if a victim of personal injury is 1% at fault, then that party is 100% barred from recovery anything.

For example; a drunk driver runs a stop sign and smashes into a sober driver. The injured sober driver is paralyzed by the collision. If the case goes to trial and the defense attorney successfully argues that the sober driver is contributory negligent because he was exceeding the speed limit and failed to avoid the collision with the drunk driver, the drunk driver who ran the stop sign pays nothing!

Continue reading "Contributory Negligence in Maryland" »

July 16, 2008

Helpful Tips for Finding Address Information for Defendants in Automobile Accident Cases

Oftentimes, in automobile accident cases, it may be difficult to obtain service for an individual defendant. Perhaps the defendant provided the wrong address at the scene of the accident. Or perhaps the defendant has moved at some point between the date of the accident and the date suit is actually filed. Fortunately, Maryland law sets forth a statutory tool for obtaining a defendant’s last known address from the defendant’s insurance company.

Under section 6-311 of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article, a plaintiff may request a defendant’s last known address directly from the defendant’s insurance company. In order to obtain this information, the plaintiff must file a certification with the court (i) stating that the defendant had insurance coverage at the time of the incident, (ii) detailing the reasonable efforts made by the plaintiff to locate the defendant; and (iii) stating that the defendant is evading service or that the whereabouts of the defendant are unknown. This certification must also be served upon the defendant’s insurer.

This statutory tool can prove invaluable for tracking down a defendant who is attempting to evade service of process or who had moved since the date of the incident. This statute can be a very inexpensive tool for obtaining very important information. I have used it in my practice a number of times.