Maryland Accident Attorney Blog

Our firm has recently had considerable success against automobile manufacturers for defective airbags. We are familiar with the technical issues involving airbags that deploy with excessive force, untimely deployment, and airbags that do not deploy at all.

We represent client's with airbag cases throughout the United States. Our expert network is highly skilled and effective. We offer free consultations and ask that you at least obtain a police report and vehicle photographs as soon as possible. In addition, we are interested in knowing:

1. Year, make and model of the vehicle
2. Whether any air bags deployed (driver, passenger, rollover air bags, side air bags, etc.)?
3. What were the injuries?
4. Date and description of accident, including what part of the vehicle was involved (front, side, rear) and what was hit (another car, pole, tree, etc.)
5. Do they have photographs of the vehicle damage?
6. Is the vehicle available? Where is it stored?
7. Description of any prior accidents with that vehicle
8. Was the person wearing their seat belt?
9. Were alcohol or drugs involved?

It is critical that you do not sell the car or allow the insurance company to salvage the vehicle. The vehicle will need to be preserved for inspection. For more information, please contact our team of lawyer to discuss.

Posted by Steven D. Silverman | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Products Liability

Bookmark:

Nissan recently decided to recall 204,361 vehicles from its 2007 and 2008 model years in the United States due to the possibility that a passenger side airbag could fail to deploy properly in an accident. The recall covers 2007 and 2008 Nissan Altima, Altima Coupe, 350Z, Murano and Rogue; and Infiniti G35 Sedan, G37 Coupe and EX35 built from March 12, 2007 to May 27, 2008. Please click here for the full article.

The defect was in the passenger side "Occupant Classification System," which figures out whether the front passenger is present, and if so, whether it's a child or small adult. Apparently, the problem is with Nissan’s “Occupant Classification System,” which didn’t work properly since it was out of spec. As a consequence, the passenger airbag may not deploy in a serious crash.

For more information regarding Nissan’s recall, or to speak with a trial attorney with experience litigating similar product liability claims against automobile manufacturers, please contact us for a free consultation.

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

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

Bookmark:

Homeowners insurance, depending upon the exact language, normally excludes intentional acts by insured that cause injury. A policy that excludes coverage for “damage which is either expected or intended from the standpoint of the insured,” has been interpreted as excluding coverage for results that were subjectively intended by insured’s act. Allstate Ins. Co. v. Sparks, 63 Md. App. 738, 742 (1985). Moreover, the court has interpreted “intent” within the insurance policy as, “…desires to cause consequences…or believes that such consequences are substantially certain to result from his conduct.” Id. at 744 (emphasis added). However, the court has distinguished “intentional” from “wanton,” in noting that “wanton” conduct is described as consequences probably certain to result. Id. (emphasis added). Under such analysis, homeowners insurance would cover for an insured’s wanton conduct causing injury to a trespasser.

A federal case, using Maryland law, discussed a policy excluding coverage for acts by the insured that “reasonably expected or intended to cause a loss.” The court stated the exclusion language applied to insured’s conduct of kicking in bathroom stall door that resulted in the door hitting the plaintiff and causing injuries. Blue Ridge Ins. Co. v. Puig, 64 F. Supp.2d 514 (1999). The court in Blue Ridge Ins. Co., distinguished the case with Allstate Ins. Co., on the fact that the insurance policy in Blue Ridge Ins. Co., excluded acts “reasonably expected…to cause a loss” as opposed to the language contained in the policy in Allstate Ins. Co. (excluding coverage for damage which is either expected or intended from the standpoint of the insured.)

Often times, their is a fine line between negligence and perceived intentional acts. This can mean the difference between insurance coverage of no insurance coverage. At Silverman, Thompson, Slutkin and White, our experienced Maryland personal injury lawyers have successfully walked this fine line on many occasions. For further information, please contact us.

Posted by Steven D. Silverman | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Insurance Carriers , Premises Liability

Bookmark:

As leading Maryland personal injury lawyers, we are often asked to explain Maryland law regarding wrongful death lawsuits.

Generally, a wrongful death claim is brought by a surviving spouse, child or parent. A Survival claim is brought by the personal representative of an estate.

To recover for a Wrongful Death cause of action, plaintiff must prove: 1) death; 2) negligence of the defendant; and 3) defendant’s negligence proximately caused death of decedent. Weimer v. Hetrick, 309 Md. 536, 547 (1987). In addition to the elements set out by case law, the Wrongful Death statute provides that the plaintiff must be within a category of defined beneficiaries under the statute and the claim must be brought within the applicable time period, 3 years after death of decedent. Md. Cts & Jud. Proc. Art. § 3-904.

To recover for a Survival cause of action, plaintiff must prove: 1) defendant’s negligence was direct and proximate cause of decedent’s injuries; 2) decedent lived after the injury; and 3) between time of injury and time of death, decedent experienced conscious pain. Tri-state Poultry Coop. v. Carey, 190 Md. 116, 125 (1948).

For further information, please contact the Maryland personal injury lawyers at Silverman, Thompson, Slutkin and White.

Posted by Steven D. Silverman | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In:

Bookmark:

A trespasser is classified as one who enters another’s property intentionally and without consent or privilege. The only duty owed to a trespasser is to “abstain from wilful or wanton misconduct.” Doehring v. Wagner, 562 A.2d 762, 767 (1989); Carroll v. Spencer, 204 Md. 387, 394 (1954) (emphasis added). A “wanton” act is one performed with reckless indifference to potentially injurious consequences. Doehring, 562 A.2d at 767; Wells v. Poland, 120 Md. App. 699, 719 (1998). Moreover, “wanton” conduct is that which is “extremely dangerous and outrageous,” with reckless disregard of others rights. Wells, 120 Md. App. at 719. However, although the above cases define “wanton,” the standard applied by the court to trigger liability to trespassers is higher. The majority of cases use such language as “conduct calculated to or reasonably expected to lead to injury of the trespasser.” Doehring, 562 A.2d at 762; Wells, 120 Md. App. at 721 (emphasis added). For example in Doehring, defendant placing chain across driveway to prevent motorcycles from accessing was not willful or wanton conduct, even though defendant was aware of prior use of driveway by motorcycles. Id.

Our firm recently represented the estate and parents of a minor who was shot and killed while trespassing onto the land of a police officer. Despite the difficult burdens placed upon the trespasser, we were able to prevail. Often, these types of cases will turn on disputed facts. Therefore, the attorney's investigation and preparation is critical to a successful verdict or settlement.

For further information, please contact the Maryland personal injury lawyers at Silverman, Thompson, Slutkin & White.

Posted by Steven D. Silverman | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Premises Liability

Bookmark:

A four year old girl and her mother were severely injured when an individual, employed by the federal government, ran a red light and broad-sided the SUV in which the toddler and her mother were traveling. After the collision, the victims’ vehicle struck a utility pole and rolled over. The young girl sustained multiple injuries, which required 25 surgeries. She was hospitalized for 250 days. Her past medical expenses totaled approximately $3.5 million. The toddler’s attorneys maintained that future life care costs for the young girl would approach $22 million. The mother sustained approximately $29,100 in past medical expenses and $212,500 in future medical expenses.

The toddler’s mother sued the federal government, which employed the negligent driver that caused the accident. The mother claimed that the federal government was vicariously liable because the negligent driver was acting within the course and scope of his employment at the time of the accident and had failed to stop for a red light. The government ultimately conceded that it was liable, but argued that the damages were significantly less than claimed. A California court disagreed. After a bench trial, the court entered judgment in favor of the toddler and her mother for $55.18 million.

If you or a loved one have been injured as a result of the negligence of another 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

Bookmark: