I first became involved in representing train accident victims in 1996 when I represented a Baltimore, Maryland family who lost their son in the fatal Amtrak/ MARC Maryland Rail Commuter train crash on February 16, 1996 in Chase, Maryland. In that accident just outside of Washington, 12 people were killed and the NTSB conducted a very comprehensive investigation. In the 1996 accident investigation, the NTSB determined driver error and signal malfunction as the cause.

History has shown that the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Administration does not always like to point a finger at itself. Over the past three decades, the NTSB has criticized the agency for papering over its safety deficiencies and failing to take corrective action from past mistakes. Just yesterday, Deborah A.P. Hersman, chairman designate of the NTSB, criticized the agency for failing to follow its three year old recommendation that the aging fleet be phased out or retrofitted. This week’s tragic accident marks the sixth fatal incident involving the DC Metro.

Under Maryland law, “an employer is ordinarily responsible for the tortuous conduct of [an] employee committed while the servant was acting within the scope of the employment relationship.” An employer is responsible for willful and reckless wrongful employee acts if that act is performed within the scope of employment and in furtherance of the employer’s business. The Maryland courts have held that “[A]n act may be within the scope of employment, even though forbidden or done in a forbidden manner…, or consciously… tortious (sic).”

In addition to compensatory damages, the employer can also be held responsible for punitive damages for an employee’s tortuous acts committed within the scope of employment, even where the employer does not authorize the employee’s conduct. An imposition of punitive damages on an employer for the tortuous acts of its employees serves to prevent future employee misconduct by encouraging astute supervision. The key issue, most often litigated is was the employee acting within the scope of her employment?

Another commonly litigated cause of action in these types of cases is negligent hiring or retention. Maryland law requires that an employer, when hiring an employee to deal directly with the public, must make some reasonable inquiry into the applicant’s fitness to perform the job before hiring or retaining that person as an employee. When an employer does not perform a reasonable inquiry into the fitness of an employee to perform the job and a third person is injured, the employer can be held liable even though injury resulted from the willful act of the employee. Under this theory, an employer who hires someone with a criminal background is most likely to be held responsible for that employees bad acts. This is especially true, the courts have held, when the employee selected will have contact with the public.

Maryland courts have held that in order to establish a negligent hiring and retention claim the employer must owe a duty to the public, the employer must breach that duty, there must be a causal connection between the employer’s breach and the harm suffered by the plaintiff and damages must result from the employer’s breach. As one can tell, often times these cases turn on the facts and how they are presented.

Bottom line is a skilled litigation attorney should be able to keep the employer on the hook when an employee injures or attacks a customer. For more information on this subject, or litigating personal injury claims in Maryland, please contact us for a complimentary consultation.

A sharp Maryland personal injury lawyer will recognize the importance of venue, recognize the best venue for his client, and file the lawsuit in the best venue for his client. The hard part is often keeping the case in the plaintiff's venue of choice. Often times a good defense attorney will ask the Judge to move the case to a different venue or court because of inconvenience to the witnesses. This is called a motion for forum non conveniens. I recently had a case involving the wrongful death of a minor which occurred in Carroll County, Maryland. Venue was also proper in Baltimore City because one of several defendants conducted business in Baltimore City. I filled suit in Baltimore City and the defense attorney immediately moved to transfer the case to Carroll County arguing that the trial in Baltimore City would be inconvenient to the witnesses. We won and the value of our lawsuit rose dramatically, even though the facts of the case had not changed.

Although the Court has discretion to transfer the action to another competent jurisdiction at the Defendants’ request, the Court cannot grant Defendants’ request to transfer unless the Defendants have met their heavy burden of proving that the balance weighs strongly in favor of the Defendants. In its determination, this Court must consider two basic factors: (1) convenience; and (2) the interests of justice. The Court found simply that the defendants failed to meet their burden in proving both factors.

For more information on venue and other important issues affecting the value of personal injury cases in Maryland, please contact us for a complimentary consultation.

Although the doctrine of sovereign immunity generally precludes an action for damages against the State of Maryland, its agencies, or officials, the Maryland Tort Claims Act (MTCA) provides for waiver of that immunity in cases of “tortuous acts or omissions committed within the scope of the public duties of state personnel, and committed without malice or gross negligence.”

The MTCA requires that the injured individual “may not institute an action . . . unless: (1) the claimant submits a written claim to the Treasurer or a designee of the Treasurer within 1 year after the injury to the person . . . ; (2) the Treasurer or designee denies the claim finally; and (3) the action is filed within 3 years after the cause of action arises.” MD. CODE ANN., STATE GOV’T § 12-102

In addition, the notice requirement provides the State with early notice of a potential claim, which allows the Treasurer, upon receipt of timely notice, to
. . . consider[] the fiscal consequences of the claim, and then decide[] which of several options to pursue. As a result of the early notice required under the MTCA, the Treasurer also has “the opportunity to investigate the claims while the facts are fresh and memories vivid, and, where appropriate, settle them at the earliest possible time.

Finally, Section 12-107 of the State Government Article of the Maryland Code, regarding the form of notice, provides:
(a) Form. – A claim under this subtitle shall:
1. contain a concise statement of facts that set forth the nature of the claim, including the date and place of the alleged tort;

2. demand specific damages;
3. state the name and address of each party;
4. state the name, address, and telephone number of counsel for the claimant, if any; and
5. be signed by the claimant, or the legal representative or counsel for the claimant.

Because the purpose of the statute is to enable the State to conduct an investigation into the underlying circumstances of the claim, and because courts are mandated to construe the MTCA broadly, plaintiffs are not required to submit a notice that exactly mirrors the form set forth in §12-107. This Court, likewise, should construe the MTCA notice requirements broadly in order to provide Plaintiffs a remedy, as envisioned by the General Assembly, and deny Defendant DJS’s Motion to Dismiss.

The Maryland Court of Special Appeals has held that a “notice of claim” substantially complied with the MTCA requirements in a case where the claimant failed to make a specific demand for damages, and when the facts of the underlying incident already would have been well known to the government. See Conaway, 90 Md.App. at 237, 600 A.2d at 1134. Conaway involved a State prisoner’s claim against the State for alleged negligent medical care received while he was in prison. Id. The prisoner filed a timely notice of claim with the State, however, his claim did not make a demand for specific damages. Id. The State ultimately denied the prisoner’s claim on the basis that the prisoner’s notice of claim did not meet the MTCA’s requirements because it lacked a demand for specific damages. Id. The prisoner then filed a complaint in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City.

The Court examined at length the purpose and legislative intent behind the MTCA and determined that, despite the claimant’s failure to demand specific damages, the notice of claim provided the State with sufficient information to enable the State to investigate the underlying incident, and therefore, served the purpose of the MTCA. Id. at 249-50, 600 A.2d at 1140. The Court of Special Appeals found significant that, “[i]n this case, the plaintiff was at all relevant times a ward of the government; the fact nature and extent of his injuries were well known to the government; [and] the medical data regarding [the claimant]’s injuries were peculiarly in control of the government . . . .” Id.

In contrast, Maryland courts typical will hold that a claimant’s notice does not substantially comply with the MTCA’s requirements where the claimant failed to provide the notice within the statutorily prescribed period. In these cases, the claimants, for various reasons, failed to provide notice to the State, or if they did provide notice, it was provided to the wrong state entity. See, e.g., Barbre, 402 Md. 157, 935 A.2d 699 (holding that the claimant did not expressly or substantially comply with the MTCA’s notice requirements where claimant submitted timely notice to a County Commissioner rather than the Treasurer or a Treasurer designee.); Simpson v. Moore, 323 Md. 215, 228-29, 592 A.2d 1090, 1096 (1991)(holding that the claimant did not substantially comply with the MTCA’s notice requirements where the claimant filed an action in State court without first providing timely notice to the Treasurer of the possibility of such a claim.); State v. Cope, 175 Md.App. 351, 374-75, 927 A.2d 426, 440 (2007) (holding that the claimant’s notice to the State, with respect to her survival action, did not substantially comply with the MTCA’s notice requirements because she claimant did not submit a written claim within the one-year required period.).

For additional information, please contact us.

The driver of the Lexus, Joseph Romano and his passenger were able to escape their vehicle. Only one of the occupants of the Chevrolet van was able to escape. The survivors were transported to Maryland Shock Trauma Center for treatment for not life-threatening injuries. Police have not disclosed the name of the person pronounced dead at the scene.

Apparently after the garbage truck struck the vehicle, both vehicles caught on fire. Coast Guard Petty Officer First Class Lavelas Luckey was the hero who saved the child. Petty Officer Luckey was on his way to work when he came upon the accident. He freed the child from the back seat and attempted to save the mother as well.

The child was taken to Johns Hopkins Pediatric Trauma Center in Baltimore. Tragically, the mother died at the seen due to injuries sustained. The accident happened on Ordinance Road in Glen Burnie. Early indications are that drugs and alcohol are not factors in this accident.

In such a motion, the party must argue that the evidence should be excluded because it is incompetent, irrelevant, immaterial, privileged, or otherwise inadmissible.

We often file such a motion before trial to keep out unfavorable facts we believe defense counsel will raise. Such examples may include our client's prior injury, criminal record, or other prejudicial matters.

The most common way to attack the introduction of unfavorable evidence before trial is the relevance argument. Maryland Rule 5-401 defines "relevant evidence" as "evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence."

Maryland also has a "Catch All" exception to exclude evidence. Md. Rule 5-403: Exclusion of relevant evidence on grounds of prejudice, confusion, or waste of time; “Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.

Many times a lawyer may try to keep racial or derogatory slurs from the ears of the jury. Young v. State, while a criminal case, involved the admissibility of racial slurs said by Defendant. The court held that the racial comments were admissible because “defendant's instructions to the child were highly probative of mens rea; the fact that the evidence may have had incidental emotional effects did not render the admission of the evidence erroneous.” Id. Martin’s case is distinguishable from Young in that Young involved comments made by the Defendant that established an element of the crime he was charged with.

When faced with prejudicial comments, the Court has determined several factors by which it decides admissibility: "including the strength of [that] evidence . . ., the similarities between the [incidents], the interval of time that has elapsed between [them], the need for the evidence, the efficacy of alternative proof, and the degree to which the evidence probably will rouse the jury to overmastering hostility." (Ayers v. State, 335 Md. 602 (Md. 1994) (quoting Edward W. Cleary, McCormick on [***88] Evidence, § 190, at 565 (3rd ed. 1984)).

By anticipating the "bad" evidence the defense attorney is likely to try to admit, and attacking it before trial, a good trial lawyer is often able to prevent a jury from thinking the plaintiff is a "bad guy".

Generally, copyright protects the original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, including: (1) literary works; (2) musical works, including any accompanying words; (3) dramatic works, including any accompanying music; (4) pantomimes and choreographic works; (5) pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works; (6) motion pictures and other audiovisual works; (7) sound recordings; and (8) architectural works.

Copyright protection of an original work of authorship does not extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work. The term "literary works" is not meant to suggest any criterion of literary merit or qualitative value, rather the term has been broadened to include catalogs, directories, and similar factual, reference, or instructional works and compilations of data. It also includes computer data bases, and computer programs to the extent that they incorporate authorship in the programmer's expression of original ideas, as distinguished from the ideas themselves. Also, “Advertisement Copy” is considered “Literary Works.”

In regards to copywright protection with respect to compilation or derivitive works, copyright protection extends only to the material contributed by the author of such work, and not the preexisting material used in the work.

In general, copyright registration is a legal formality and is permissive. A copyright is created when the work is created, therefore, registration is not a condition of copyright protection. However, no action for infringement of the copyright in any United States’ work shall be instituted until pre-registration or registration of the copyright claim has been made in accordance with the applicable statute. Note, however, that failure to register prior to bringing suit is curable, and several jurisdictions have allowed the plaintiff to amend its complaint after registering with the Copyright office.

For more information, or a complimentary evaluation of your claim, please click here to contact us.

From a legal standpoint, this revelation may open the door to the recovery of punitive damages against the Georgia company and its officers. In addition, criminal charges are likely to be closely examined. The Justice Department has confirmed opening a criminal investigation. The salmonella outbreak has been blamed for at least eight deaths and 575 illnesses in 43 states.

Problems at the plant date back to 2001 when FDA inspectors found that products potentially were exposed to insecticides, "one of several violations uncovered during the last visit federal officials made before the current food-poisoning scare, according to a report obtained by The Associated Press" the Baltimore Sun reports.

The product liability lawyers of Silverman, Thompson, Slutkin & White have significant experience in handling product liability cases such as the peanut salmonella outbreak. We are now accepting cases, on a nationwide basis, against the Georgia peanut company. If you or a family member has been sickened by this reckless conduct, please contact us immediately for a free evaluation of your case (1-800-385-2243).For accepted cases, we are handling these cases on a no recovery-no fee-no expenses basis. There is no charge for a case evaluation.