Maryland Accident Attorney Blog

All of Maryland is deeply saddened by the weekend crash of a Maryland medical evacuation helicopter over the weekend. Four people were killed in the late-night crash in Prince George's County, Maryland. The Baltimore Sun reports the victims included the aircraft's pilot, a crew member, a civilian medic and a patient.

The men and women who heroically serve on Maryland's medevac teams are instrumental in saving thousands of Marylanders each year by responding swiftly and professionally to accident and vehicle crash sites. The cause of this accident remains unknown and is still under investigation. All 11 remaining Maryland medical evacuation helicopters will remain grounded until the cause of the crash is determined. These medevac helicopters are similar in make and model to the one that crashed over the weekend.

Five people survived this crash and were taken to Maryland Shock Trauma Center in Baltimore. Maryland medevac helicopters fly around 5,000 missions each year. There has not been a major accident or fatality in the past two decades. All Marylanders respect and appreciate the selfless work of the brave men and women of the Maryland medevac team and grieve with them and the families of those who lost their lives.

Posted by Steven D. Silverman | Permalink | Email This Post | Comments (0)

Posted In: Personal Injury

Bookmark:

Occasionally in Maryland personal injury claims, a situation arises when one or more insurance companies agree to pay their entire policy to the claimant(s), but are unable to do so without exposing itself to potential liability. This situation often occurs when two or more persons are are injured and are competing for a limited amount of insurance. Rather than cut a deal with one of the victims, the insurance company will file an interpleader action.

Generally, An action for interpleader may be brought against two are more adverse claimants, when those claimants claim to be entitled to certain property, said property is within the possession of the Plaintiff, and the claims are such that the Plaintiff may be exposed to double or multiple liability, meaning that the Plaintiff could be subject to pay out more money then is actually in their possession.

An Interpleader Action in Maryland can be filed in state of federal court.

There are two different ways to file an Interpleader Action in Federal Court. The first is using Rule 22 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the second is using §1335 of the USCS. For our purposes, we should use §1335 to file a Federal Interpleader Action. The reason for this is because Rule 22 requires complete diversity between the Stake-Holder (our firm) and the Claimants (all of the investors). Because the majority of the investors are from Maryland, we would not have complete diversity between Stake-holder and Investors, therefore, making it difficult to interplead under Rule 22. Section 1335, however, only requires that there be diversity between two or more adverse claimants. In this case, because at least one of the claimants is from Alabama, we satisfy the diversity requirement under §1335, therefore permitting the action to be filed in Federal Court.

Interpleader actions in Maryland State court are governed by Md. Rule 2-221. This rule states that after Defendants have had the opportunity to answer the complaint, there are seven possible orders that may be entered.

The only apparent difference between filing the action in State court and filing in Federal Court is that the State Rule specifically lays out in detail the possible prayers for relief, the seven aforementioned orders, as compared to the Federal Rules which leaves this open to determination of the moving party.

For further information on this subject, please contact Steve Silverman for a complimentary consultation.

Posted by Steven D. Silverman | Permalink | Email This Post | Comments (0)

Posted In: Insurance Carriers

Bookmark:

Next to contributory negligence, no defense is raised more in a Maryland personal injury case than assumption of risk. It is well-established in Maryland that in order to establish the assumption of risk defense, the defendant bears the burden of proving that the plaintiff: (i) had knowledge of the risk of the danger; (ii) appreciated that risk; and (iii) voluntarily confronted the risk of danger. The majority of the cases turn on the issue of voluntariness.

In order for a plaintiff to have voluntarily exposed himself to the risk of a known danger, “there must be some manifestation of consent to relieve the defendant of the obligation of reasonable conduct.” ADM Partnership v. Martin, 348 Md. 84, 92, 702 A.2d 730, 734 (1997).

As the Maryland Court of Appeals has explained:
[I]n order for a plaintiff to assume voluntarily a risk of danger, there must exist “the willingness of the plaintiff to take an informed chance,” . . . ; there can be no restriction on the plaintiff’s freedom of choice either by the existing circumstances or by coercion emanating from the defendant. This is so because even where the plaintiff does not protest, the risk is not assumed where the conduct of the defendant has left him no reasonable alternative. Where the defendant puts him to a choice of evils, there is a species of duress, which destroys the idea of freedom of election.

the Restatement (Second) of Torts. Section 496E of the Restatement provides:
(1) A plaintiff does not assume a risk of harm unless he voluntarily accepts the risk.
(2) The plaintiff’s acceptance of a risk is not voluntary if the defendant’s tortious conduct has left him no reasonable alternative course of conduct in order to
(a) avert harm to himself or herself, or
(b) exercise or protect a right or privilege of which the defendant has no right to deprive him.

In Maryland, “if a person was compelled to act and had no freedom of choice regarding whether to act,” he will not be said to have acted voluntarily, as a matter of law. See Crews v. Hollenbach, 358 Md. 627, 648, 751 A.2d 481 (2000).

For further information on the assumption of risk defense in Maryland personal injury cases, please contact Steve Silverman for a complimentary consultation.

Posted by Steven D. Silverman | Permalink | Email This Post | Comments (0)

Posted In: Defenses

Bookmark:

The Baltimore City Board of Estimates approved two settlements in two cases against City Police Officers stemming from police brutality. http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/baltimore_city/bal-md.ci.settlements19sep19,0,2770178.story. In one case, the City approved at $320,000.00 Settlement for four victims and in the second, approved a $75,000.00 settlement on behalf on one victim.

Continue reading " City Agrees to Pay Thousands to Victims of Police Brutality " »

Posted by Craig L. Zissel | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In:

Bookmark:

Each year, more than forty percent of the total number of traffic fatalities are alcohol related. In this country, nearly 17,000 thousand people are killed on an annual basis in accidents caused by drunk drivers.

Sadly, notwithstanding these horrific statistics, Maryland law does not permit a cause of action against a bar owner, restaurant, homeowner or other individual or entity responsible for negligently serving alcohol to individuals who later get behind the wheel of a car and cause serious, and oftentimes catastrophic, injury to others. See Veytsman v. New York Palace, Inc., 170 Md.App. 104, 122 n.11 (2006). Such a claim is known as tavern liability or “dram shop” liability. In fact, Maryland is one of only three states that do not permit such lawsuits. Maryland law also does not allow an injured victim to recover punitive damages in automobile accident cases, even in instances where the driver that caused the injury has consumed excessive quantities of alcohol or other mind-altering drugs. See Komornik v. Sparks, 331 Md. 720 (1993).

Continue reading " Pursuing a Recovery for Personal Injuries Caused by a Drunk Driver " »

Posted by Todd M. Reinecker | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Automobile Accident , Motorcycle Accidents , Personal Injury , Trucking Accidents , Wrongful Death

Bookmark:

Many individual automobile insurance policies do not provide adequate coverage for catastrophically injured victims. As a result, a product liability case against the manufacturer of the automobile may need to be explored. Such cases can be extremely complicated and expensive to prosecute effectively. As such, it is imperative to consult a trial attorney with significant experience handling such cases.

In addition to a simple “negligence” theory, Maryland law recognizes the “crashworthiness doctrine” and doctrine of “strict liability.” A claim may also be pursued under Maryland’s Consumer Protection Act in appropriate circumstances. Pursuing such avenues may be the only way to obtain full compensation for the catastrophically injured client. Therefore, at the beginning of a case, counsel should take affirmative steps to determine whether a product liability theory of recovery should be considered. At a minimum, counsel should take steps to secure the vehicles involved in an accident and send a “spoliation” letter to any parties involved in the accident to preserve evidence for later inspection.

My law firm and I recently obtained a substantial settlement from an automobile manufacturer in a product liability case on behalf of a woman who was blinded in an automobile accident case by the vehicle’s airbag. For more information regarding your catastrophic automobile injury case, please contact us for a complimentary consultation.

Posted by Todd M. Reinecker | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Automobile Accident , Motorcycle Accidents , Personal Injury , Trucking Accidents , Wrongful Death

Bookmark:

Maryland is a major transportation corridor for trucking and other interstate travel with Interstate 95 running from North/South and Interstate 70 running East/West. As such, accidents involving tractor trailers and other large motor carriers oftentimes occur on Maryland’s frequently traveled roadways. In many of these cases, the tractor trailer is equipped with a “black box” containing critical information, such as average speeds of travel, top speeds, braking information for "hard stops" or other valuable information just prior to the point of impact. It may also contain information regarding the number of hours the truck was in operation; information that can be compared with the log books the driver and trucking company are required to keep. The black box can be a gold mine of information. The information contained in the black box can be critical to proving liability not just for the negligent truck driver, but for the company that employs him or her. This information can be used to show that a trucking company should have known there were problems with a particular driver.

If you’ve been involved in an automobile accident involving a tractor trailer or other trucking company, it is important to retain counsel early and act quickly. Counsel should send a “spoliation” letter requesting that the trucking company take affirmative steps to preserve evidence, including the data contained in the black box. A substantial amount of the data can be lost if the tractor trailer is put back into service after an accident. Counsel should notice the inspection of the tractor trailer unit. Counsel should also retain expert assistance to download the black box information. You don’t want the defendant-trucking company to beat you to the punch because they can easily erase critical information in the process. In addition to a black box, some trucking companies also use satellite tracking on their vehicles. This too can be a critical resource to explore when prosecuting a trucking accident case.

If you’ve been injured by the negligence of a truck driver, contact an experienced Maryland plaintiff's personal injury lawyer for a free consultation about how best to pursue your claim.

Posted by Todd M. Reinecker | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Automobile Accident , Motorcycle Accidents , Personal Injury , Trucking Accidents , Wrongful Death

Bookmark:

An Iowa jury recently awarded a woman $1.5 Million Dollars in a lawsuit she filed against the man who infected her with HPV, a sexually transmitted disease that causes genital warts. Karly Rossiter filed suit against Alan Evans claiming he told her he was free of sexually transmitted diseases in order to coerce her into having unprotected sex with him, when in fact he was carrying the human papilloma virus which causes genital warts.

Continue reading " Woman wins $1.5 Million from Man Who Gave Her HPV. " »

Posted by Craig L. Zissel | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In:

Bookmark: