Maryland Accident Attorney Blog

A woman was fatally struck by a car as she attempted to cross Eastern Avenue this morning around 5:20 am. The Baltimore Sun is reporting in an article that the woman was struck in the eastbound lanes near 54th Street. The police are looking for a vehicle they believe to be a Mazda with damage to the headlamp area.

Police say they will release the victim's identification after the family is notified.

Anyone with information on the driver or the location of the vehicle is asked to call 410-307-2020 or Metro Crime Stoppers at 1-866-756-2587.

A Baltimore man was tragically killed on Saturday night in a hit and run accident on the 4700 block of Greenspring Avenue. A recent Baltimore Sun article reports that James Little, Jr. was struck by a Jeep Cherokee traveling northbound on Greenspring Valley Road which left the scene following the accident. According to the article, the police located the vehicle and its driver a short while later and noticed the vehicle to have a smashed and bloodstained windshield. The vehicle's driver, a 20 year old woman, was taken into custody for questioning and toxicology tests and later released.
Every year, pedestrians throught Maryland are injured in motor vehicle-pedestrian accidents. Experienced auto accident attorneys can help victims and their families recover for their injuries.

Continue reading "Baltimore Man Killed in Hit and Run Accident" »

SUMMARY OF APPLICABLE MARYLAND STATUTES AND CASELAW

I. Rules of the Road, Duty & Standard of Care

The Maryland Transportation Article codifies the “Rules of the Road” for all vehicles traveling on Maryland roadways. All drivers of vehicles in Maryland must observe the rules of the road. Md. Transp. Art. §21-102. They may also assume that others will obey the rules of the road and need not anticipate that others will violate the law. Dean v. Redmiles, 208 Md. 137, 374 A.2d 329 (1977). Pursuant to Md. Transp. Art. §21-1202, the operator of a bicycle on a public street possesses all the rights and duties of the driver of a vehicle. These general duties include the duty to operate a bicycle, or any vehicle, with ordinary care under the circumstances. Kaffl v. Moran, 233 Md. 473, 477-478, 197 A.2d 240, 242 (1964). In addition, there are unique rules of the road that apply particularly to the operation of bicycles. Drivers of motor vehicles owe a duty to bicyclists to exercise due care to avoid colliding with any bicycle being ridden by a person. Md. Transp. Art. §21-1209. Bicycle operators must to ride as close to the right side of the road as practicable, except when turning left, traveling on a one way street, or passing a slower moving vehicle. Md. Transp. Art. §21-1205. Operation of a bicycle in violation of a statute does not constitute negligence as a matter of law, unless the violation is the proximate cause of injury. Miles v. State, 174 Md. 292, 198 A. 724 (1938).

Operators of any type of vehicle on Maryland roadways owe a duty to exercise due care under the circumstances. Moran, 233 Md. 473 at 477-478, 197 A.2d 240 at 242 . While ordinary care is generally required, the Court of Appeals has held that “vigilance must vary according to the danger naturally anticipated from the operation of the vehicle.” Heffner v. Admiral Taxi Service, Inc., 196 Md. 465, 471, 77 A.2d 127, 129 (1950). It is universally understood by travelers on the roadway that intersections create an increased potential for collisions. In anticipation of this known danger, a higher degree of caution is appropriate. The Court opined that “a motorist, when approaching a street intersection, must exercise much greater vigilance than when he is driving between intersections.” Id.

The Maryland Transportation Article also includes provisions that pertain to specific traffic maneuvers. Regarding turns, “a person may not, if any other vehicle might be affected by the movement, turn a vehicle until he gives an appropriate signal in the manner required.” Md. Transp. Art. §21-604(c). A signal of an intention to turn must be given continuously during at least the last 100 feet traveled by a vehicle before turning. Md. Transp. Art. §21-604(d). In addition to signaling, “if the driver of a vehicle intends to turn right at any intersection, he shall approach the intersection and make the right turn as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway.” Md. Transp. Art. §21-601(a). The requirement that drivers of motor vehicles drive close to the edge of the roadway when approaching a right turn is intended to provide further indication to following drivers of an impending turn, so that the turning motorist will not be passed by following vehicles on the side toward which an indication of turning has been given. Norris v. Wolfensberger, 248 Md. 635, 237 A.2d 757 (1968).

In addition to the duty to properly signal an intended turn, drivers owe a duty not to make a turn from a direct course until such turn can be made with reasonable safety. Md. Transp. Art. §21-604(b). Before turning, drivers must keep a proper lookout. As noted by the Court of Appeals, “[o]ne who operates a motor vehicle on a public highway must anticipate the presence of others thereon and must exercise constant vigilance to avoid injuring them…” Peoples Drug Stores v. Windham, 178 Md. 172, 185, 12 A.2d 532, 538 (1940). A well established rule is that when a witness says he looked but did not see an object which he must have seen if he did look, such testimony is unworthy of consideration. Cogswell v. Frazier, 183 Md. 654, 660, 39 A.2d 815, 818 (1944).

Continue reading "Respective Duty, Liability, and Defenses of Motorists and Bicyclists Traveling on Maryland Roadways" »

WBAL Radio is reporting on their website that Tim Wheatley, the Business Editor for the Baltimore Sun was killed today in a morning accident in Baltimore County. According to WBAL, Mr. Wheatley was attempting to pull onto York Road from Corbet Road when his vehicle was struck on the driver's side by a UPS truck. The intersection where the accident occurred is controlled by a traffic control device, and at this time an investigation is ongoing to determine who is at fault for the accident. Mr. Wheatley's daughter was also injured in the accident.
Every year, thousands of Marylanders are injured in automobile accidents as a result of someone else's negligence. An experienced trial attorney can help protect the injured. If you or someone you know is injured in an a car accident in Maryland, contact an experienced Maryland Auto Accident Attorney at (410) 385-2225 or czissel@mdattorney.com

Dr. Brian Edgar Emery, a Howard County physician, was killed on Thursday evening when the vehicle he was driving was struck from the rear by another vehicle and pushed into oncoming traffic. Dr. Emery was stopped on Route 32 near the Howard-Carrol County border waiting to make a left turn when his vehicle was hit from behind by a van being driven by Thomas Donald Cory. A recent, Baltimore Sun Article, reported on this tragic accident which occurred on a dangerous stretch of road in Howard County. Earlier this year a mother and child were killed on the same stretch of road.

Continue reading "Skykesville Man Killed in Tragic Howard County Accident" »

Every year thousands of Marylanders are involved in automobile accidents which result in injuries or even death. For many of us, figuring out what to do immediatley following a car accident is confusing and scary. An experienced Maryland Accident Attorney can help injured Maryland citizens in the stressful days following an accident. If you or someone you know is injured in an automobile accident and has questions about what to do, please contact the Personal Injury Experts at 410-385-2225 or czissel@mdattorney.com

Continue reading "What should you do if you are injured in a car accident?" »

Tragic and somewhat confusing news coming out of North Carolina today. The Baltimore Sun is reporting two separate vehicles, both driven by Maryland residents, were involved in a head-on collision on U.S. 17 in North Carolina.

Apparently Loriann Bobotek, 47, of the 4000 block of Hopi Court in Ellicott City was driving her Dodge Caravan south on U.S. 17 when she attempted to pass a slower moving vehicle. When she moved into the other lane of travel, her van slammed into a black Mitsubishi Montero operated by Christina Sonn, 35 of the 3000 block of Edwards Avenue in Parkville, Maryland. Both drivers shortly after the collision.

Seven total passengers in Bobotek's van and the Montero were taken to an area hospital in Greenville, N.C. and five have since been released.

The facts of this accident bring to light a legal delema victems and familly's of victems face when confronted with an out-of-state accident. Do you retain a lawyer where the accident occured or where you live? The question is complex, but the simple answer is where you live. Using this case as an example, an experienced Maryland personal injury lawyer should be able to do everything a North Carolina injury attorney can do, and more.

Continue reading "Two Maryland Women Killed in Head-On Collision in North Carolina" »

On Tuesday August 4, 2009, a wonderful man named John "Jack" Yates (age 67) was killed, while safely operating his bicycle, by a hit and run driver at the corner of Maryland Avenue and Lafayette Avenue in Baltimore City, Maryland. The hit and run driver was operating a nondescript white box truck.

Jack Yates was a loving grandfather, father and husband. He spent his entire professional life helping troubled youth in Baltimore City. He deserves better. If anyone has information as to the identity of the truck and driver, please contact the Baltimore City Police or send a confidential email to ssilverman@mdattorney.com. Thanks, Steve Silverman

The Baltimore Sun is reporting that a cyclist was struck by a motor vehicle and killed in downtown Baltimore today. The accident occurred on the corner of Maryland and Lafayette avenues. It is unclear whether the cyclist was wearing a helmet.

Our firms personal injury department has successfully handled several accidents involving bicycles and automobiles. Interestingly enough, the rules of the road apply the same to cyclist as they do to automobiles. For more information, please contact us for a consultation.

The Baltimore Sun is reporting a man driving a Lexus crashed into the rear of a slow moving van this morning on Interstate 97 near Crownsville. The crash sparked a fire that consumed both vehicles. One person was killed.

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.

A skateboarder’s failure to yield when entering a highway contributed to his own demise and bars his widow and estate from recovering against the driver whose vehicle struck and killed him, the Court of Special Appeals has held. A recent article in the Maryland Daily Record discusses the Court's determination that a skateboarder is a "vehicle" and therefore subject to the boulevard rule. Thousands of Marylanders are injured every year while riding on skateboards, bicycles and other recreational vehicles. An experienced accident attorney can help injured victims recover compensation for their injuries under the law.

Continue reading "Injured Skateboarder's Family Loses Lawsuit" »

The Baltimore Sun is reporting that Mathew S. Markle, 38, was tragically killed this morning in a one-car accident near Havre de Grace, Maryland this morning. an Interstate 95 on-ramp was closed for several hours. According to the Maryland State Police, Mr. Markle lost control of his pickup truck on the ramp from Route 155 to southbound I-95 on Exit 89. He lost control when his pickup left the roadway, went into a ditch and overturned. The driver was pronounced dead at the scene.

Terrible news out of Anne Arundel County this morning. A 33 year old woman was killed and her 5 year old daughter were injured when another vehicle struck her in the rear, forcing her directly into the path of a commercial garbage truck. According to the Baltimore Sun, Anne Arundel Police have not released the victim's names.

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.

Very sad news coming out of Anne Arundel County , Maryland this morning. The Baltimore Sun is reporting that Ashley Nicole Meyers was "attempting to cross Ritchie Highway near Hamburg Street in Pasadena when she was struck by a northbound 1999 Nissan Sentra about 5:47 p.m" yesterday. Police are reporting that the child was wearing dark clothing at dusk and crossed the busy highway at a place not designated for pedestrian crossings. The girl was pronounced dead at Baltimore Washington Medical Center an hour later.

Our hearts go out to the family and friends of both the child and the unnamed driver of the vehicle that struck her. There is no report-at this time-that drugs or alcohol played a part in this motor vehicl accident.

A jury in Howard County, Maryland recently awarded a woman $188,000.00 for injuries she sustained as a car accident victim traveling in a co-workers vehicle, according to an article appearing in todays Dailty Record. Experienced Maryland Accident Attorneys can help victims injured in automobile accidents recover for their injuries. If you are having trouble dealing with your or the other drivers insurance company, an experienced attorney can help you navigate the judicial process to maximize your recovery.

Continue reading "Howard County Jury Awards $188,000.00 to Woman Who Injured Neck in Car Accident" »

The Baltimore Sun is reporting very sad news coming out of Westminster this morning. Apparently a driver of a Ford pickup truck slammed into the rear of a Chevrolet Cavalier that was full of McDaniel College students around 11:00pm yesterday. The 19 year old student, Thomas Rouleau, of Gilboa, N.Y., died at the scene. Four other students were in the car, three of which were taken to University of Maryland-Shock Trauma. Fortunately those injuries were not life threatening and they were released.

Our hearts go out to the family and friends of Mr. Rouleau, who apparently was not responsible for this accident. It is reported that this was the second accident in a matter of minutes the driver of the Ford pickup had caused and fled. Sadly in these situations, experience shows that their is a strong possibility the hit and run driver may have been under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Hopefully the police will find the driver today and bring him/her to justice. Just by leaving the scene of an accident involving death, the fleeing driver is subject to a penalty of up to ten years in jail. Additional charges may be warranted.

Question Presented: What standard of care is owed by a Maryland driver upon entrance into a controlled intersection, where the traffic signal is blank due to malfunction?

Short Answer: Maryland statutes do not specifically address the standard of care applicable where traffic signals at a controlled intersection fail to operate. Drivers of motor vehicles in Maryland always owe a duty of reasonable care, and whether a driver has exercised reasonable care in a particular circumstance is generally a question of fact for the jury. A driver’s right to assume he has the right of way is an important factor in determining whether the standard for reasonable care is met. Should Maryland’s “boulevard rule” apply to the facts, the “favored driver” is presumed to have the right of way.

Analysis:

In Maryland, drivers of motor vehicles always owe a duty of reasonable, ordinary care. Kaffl v. Moran, 233 Md. 473 (1964). The caution required to meet this standard will vary depending upon the circumstances, but the standard remains the same. Heffner v. Admiral Taxi Ser., Inc., 196 Md. 465.

Approaching an intersection, the amount of caution constituting “ordinary care” is elevated because of the increased potential for collision with other vehicles. Heffner, 196 Md. 465. Right of way at an intersection is assigned in accordance with how the intersection is controlled and how the intersecting roads are characterized. At an uncontrolled intersection where neither road is designated as a “through highway”, a vehicle has the right of way over any other vehicle approaching from the left and must yield to any vehicle approaching from the right. Md. Code Ann., Transportation, §21-401; Valcourt v. Ross, 201 Md. 17 (1952). At controlled intersections, traffic signals, stop signs, or yield signs will indicate the right of way. Md. Code Ann., Transportation, §21-403.

At an intersection involving a “through highway”, right of way is determined in accordance with Maryland’s “boulevard rule”, codified in Md. Code Ann., Transportation §21-403. A “through highway” is defined as a “highway or part of a highway (1) on which vehicular traffic is given the right of way; and (2) at the entrances to which vehicular traffic from intersecting highways is required by law to yield the right of way to vehicles on that highway or part of a highway, in obedience to either a stop sign or yield sign placed as provided in the Maryland Vehicle Law.” Md. Code Ann., Transportation §21-101. A “highway” is any “road” or “street”. Md. Code Ann., Transportation §8-101.

Pursuant to the “boulevard rule”, the driver traveling on a through highway is deemed the “favored driver” and the driver traveling on the intersecting highway is deemed the “unfavored driver”. The unfavored driver must stop before entering the through highway and afford the favored driver right of way. The favored driver may safely assume that the unfavored driver will yield, and may proceed through the intersection without stopping. Though the favored driver has the right of way, he is not absolved of his duty to drive lawfully and to proceed through the intersection with reasonable care. MPJI-Cv 18:2 Boulevard Rule. Favored drivers may assume that unfavored drivers will obey the law, but they may not ignore an obvious danger. Dean v. Redmiles, 280 Md. 137 (1977). The “boulevard rule” reflects a policy goal of expediting traffic on boulevards or through highways, so that the larger or more traveled of two intersecting highways will be considered favored. Id

Continue reading "Standard of care applied to Maryland drivers upon malfunction of a traffic signal at a controlled intersection" »

Experienced personal injury attorneys know there is no question asked more often and as difficult to answer than; What is my case worth? The answer to this question is based upon many factors which an experienced personal injury lawyer can best answer.

Our system of civil justice is terrible at valuing the loss, but rather consistently values the lawsuit. For instance, there are many cases involving horrific tragedies such as the death of a child, the loss of which can never be compensated for. Nonetheless, our judicial system attempts to assign a value to such an incomprehensible losses. Hence, the value of most lawsuits never truly compensate for the irreplaceable loss of life or limb. So how do we lawyers come up with a value for injury cases? Understanding this is an imperfect science, lets get cracking.

Most experienced personal injury lawyers will consider the below factors, as well as personal experience, to provide clients with a range of what a case may be worth. The factors that determine value of a personal injury case include:

1) Strength of liability
2) Venue
3) Severity of Injury
4) Medical Bills: past and future
5) Economic Loss: Wages and Loss of services
6) Aggravating Factors
7) Skill of Attorneys

Strength of liability: The settlement value of a case will often be greatly affected by the strength of the liability. For instance, if two auto accident plaintiffs have the same injury (broken back) the pretrial settlement offers may vary greatly based upon the strength of the liability argument.

If liability is clear (rear end collision), than the pretrial offer will be higher to take into account that there will be a verdict, and it is just a question of how much. On the other hand, if liability is disputed and the defendant has a chance of winning on liability, the pretrial settlement offer will be considerably less to reflect the real possibility that the defendant may walk away paying nothing.

Continue reading "Valuing Personal Injury Cases in Maryland" »

LIST OF INSTRUCTIONS
(Maryland Civil Pattern Jury Instructions-Unless Otherwise Indicated)

1. Introduction 1:1
2. Questions of Law During Trial 1:2
3. Witness Testimony Consideration 1:3
4. Expert Opinion Testimony 1:4
5. Impartiality in Consideration 1:5
6. Inferences from Statements of Court 1:6
7. Burden of Proof-Preponderance of Evidence Standard 1:7
8. Case Submission on Issues 1:12
9. Conclusion-Unanimous Verdict 1:13
10. Introductory Statement on Damages 10:1
11. Compensatory Damages for Bodily Injury 10:2
12. Susceptibility to Injury 10:3
13. Damages – Collateral Source Rule 10:8
14. Mortality Table – Life Expectancy of Laura Moore 10:26
15. Standard of Care 18:1
16. Definition – Negligence 19:1
17. Definition – Causation 19:10
18. Contributory Negligence – Generally 19:11
19. Last Clear Chance 19:14
20. Definition of Pedestrian 23:1
21. Duty to Pedestrians – Generally 23:2

MPJI-Cv 1:1 INTRODUCTION

a. Instructions at Beginning of Trial

(i) Explanation of Trial Procedure

Members of the jury, in this case the plaintiff, (name), has sued the defendant, (name), claiming damages for (brief description of claim).
The trial will proceed in the following way. You will first hear opening statements by the lawyers. Each party has the right to make an opening statement for the purpose of outlining for you what the party expects to prove. The plaintiff's lawyer will make the first opening statement and then the defendant's lawyer may choose whether to make an opening statement.
The plaintiff will then present evidence. After the plaintiff's case has been presented through witnesses and exhibits, the defendant will then have an opportunity to present evidence. Each witness is first examined by the party who calls the witness to testify and then the opposing party is permitted to cross-examine the witness.
During the trial the lawyers may make objections to the introduction of evidence, or make motions concerning the law. Arguments in connection with objections or motions are usually made out of the hearing of the jury, either here at the bench or after the jury has been excused from the courtroom. This is because questions of law and admissibility of evidence do not involve the jury; they are decided by the judge. It is the duty of a lawyer to make objections and motions which the lawyer believes are proper. You should not be influenced by the fact that a lawyer has made objections or by the number of objections which have been made. You should draw no conclusions from my rulings, either as to the merits of the case or as to my views regarding any witness or the case itself.
After the conclusion of all of the evidence, I will instruct you as to the law which is applicable to this case. You must follow and apply the law as I will explain it to you. After these instructions, the lawyers will make their closing arguments. In their arguments, the lawyers will point out to you what they contend the evidence has shown and the conclusions they would like you to draw from the evidence. The plaintiff's lawyer will make the first closing argument, then the defendant's lawyer will make a closing argument. After the defendant's argument, the plaintiff will have an opportunity to make an argument in rebuttal to the defendant's argument. What the lawyers say in their opening statements, in their closing arguments, and in making objections or motions during the trial, is not evidence. The reason the plaintiff goes first in each instance is because the plaintiff has the burden of proof.
After closing arguments, you will retire to the jury room and begin your deliberations. It will then be your function and responsibility to decide the facts. You must base your findings only upon the testimony, the exhibits received and the stipulation(s) of the parties and any conclusions which may fairly be drawn from that evidence.

(ii) General Principles

The following general principles are intended to assist you in judging the evidence and to guide you in the performance of your duties as jurors during the course of the trial: [MPJI-Cv 1:3, 1:4, 1:5, 1:6, 1:7 and 1:8, to the extent they are applicable, are to be used here.]

(iii) Admonitions as to Juror Conduct

This case will probably take (insert number) days to conclude. During that period, there will be recesses and adjournments of court when you will be excused. From this point forward, until the case is over and you have rendered your verdict, you may not discuss the case with anyone who is not on the jury. You may not discuss the case even with each other during the trial. You must wait until after you have heard (1) all of the evidence, (2) my instructions as to the law, and (3) closing arguments. In fairness to all the parties to this case, you should keep an open mind throughout the trial. You should reach your final conclusions only during your deliberations after having heard all of the evidence, my instructions as to the law and the lawyers' closing arguments. Until the trial is over, you must avoid all contact of any kind with any of the participants in the trial, except for common courtesy such as the exchange of greetings. That includes the parties, the lawyers, the witnesses and any persons whom you see in close contact with these individuals. Do not visit the scene of any incident mentioned in the testimony or seek advice from friends or acquaintances as to any issues in this case or otherwise conduct investigation outside the courtroom. The reason for this is that you must decide the case only on the evidence which you have heard and seen in the courtroom and on nothing else.

b. Instructions at End of Trial

Members of the jury, the time has come for the Court to give you its instructions with respect to the law which is applicable in this case. You must apply the law as I explain it to you. Any comments I may make about the facts are only to help you and you are not required to agree with them. It is your function and responsibility to decide the facts. You must base your findings only upon the testimony, the exhibits received and the stipulation[s] of the parties, including any conclusions which may be fairly drawn from that evidence. Opening statements and arguments of the lawyers are not evidence in this case. If your memory of any of the testimony is different from any statement that I might make during the course of these instructions or that counsel might make in argument, you must rely on your own memory.

c. Witness and Party

Any person who testifies, including a party, is a witness.

Continue reading "Standard Maryland Jury Instructions for Injured Pedestrian" »

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.

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.

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.

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" »

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.

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.

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.

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.

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? " »

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.

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." »

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.

Sometimes, individuals that do not carry automobile insurance coverage (because they do not drive) are injured by an uninsured motorist or "phantom vehicle." The Maryland legislature has created a special fund to compensate these victims. In certain circumstances, it may be possible to make a claim against this government-managed fund when a person has been injured (or his or her property has been damaged) by the negligent act or omission of an uninsured motorist or a motorist that has fled the scene of the collision and cannot be identified.

When someone is struck by a "phantom vehicle," the injured person must demonstrate that he or she has made all "reasonable efforts" to ascertain the identity of the motor vehicle and the owner/operator of the motor vehicle that stuck him or her, but was unsuccessful. What constitutes "reasonable efforts" is determined on a case by case basis, but Maryland courts have historically applied a much heightened standard. Generally speaking, "reasonable efforts" are the same efforts that one would expect an injured person to make if he or she knew there would be zero recovery unless he or she actually located the driver of the phantom vehicle. These efforts may include, but certainly are not limited to, interviewing all available witnesses, searching the surrounding area for the vehicle, publishing a notice in a local paper and/or hiring a private investigator.

When someone is struck by a disappearing motorist or phantom vehicle, it is imperative that swift action is taken to properly preserve the rights an injured party may have. For that reason, it is important to hire an experienced trial attorney that is familiar with the statutory rules for pursuing a recovery against the fund and who has the resources to make "all reasonable efforts" to obtain the identity of the phantom vehicle.

If you have been injured by the negligence of a disappearing driver, please contact an experienced attorney at www.mdattorney.com for a free consultation.

A Cheyenne, Wyoming jury awarded a husband and wife more than $18 million in a personal injury lawsuit arising out of a tractor-trailer collision. The driver of the tractor-trailer and the trucking company that employed her were found to be negligent in causing the crash. The defendants claimed that the husband, who was very seriously injured and sustained severe brain damage as a result of the crash, was negligent in causing the collision. The jury disagreed. A copy of the article regarding the case can be found here.

Trucking cases can be very difficult and complex cases to handle and it is very important to be represented by an experienced trial attorney who is familiar with the statutes, rules and regulations that are applicable to truck drivers and trucking companies. These statutes, rules and regulations may add another layer of complexity to an otherwise typical automobile accident case. There are certain records that a trucking company is required by law to maintain. These records can be critical to the outcome of trucking case where a party has sustained serious personal injuries. For instance, Department of Transportation regulations govern the inspection and maintenance responsibilities of most motor carriers and truck drivers that conduct interstate operations. These regulations have been adopted by the Maryland legislature and apply with equal force to intrastate motor carriers that conduct business entirely within the State of Maryland.

Some trucking accidents happen when a tire blows on a dump truck or tractor-trailer. At first glance, one might conclude that such “acts of God” are not related to any negligent act or omission on the part of the truck driver or the trucking company. However, that may not be the case. Department of Transportation regulations provide, among other things, that it is unlawful to operate any commercial vehicle unless the driver is certain that the tires and other component parts are in good working order. No motor vehicle may be operated on a tire which has an inflation pressure less than that specified for the load being carried. Wheels and rims may not be cracked or broken when the truck is being operated. Every motor carrier is obligated to systematically inspect, repair and maintain all motor vehicles under its control, including the wheels and rims. The motor vehicle is required to maintain a record of all inspection, repairs and maintenance for six months after the vehicle leaves the motor carrier’s control. Every motor carrier must require each of its drivers to prepare a report in writing at the completion of each work day on each vehicle operated. The report is required to identify the vehicle and list any defect or deficiency which would affect the safety of operating the vehicle. If no defect or deficiency is discovered, the report must so indicate. The report must be signed by the driver. Any deficiency or defect must be repaired prior to the operation of the vehicle. A driver must be satisfied that the vehicle is in safe operating condition prior to operating it. Every driver is required to review the last driver inspection report before operating the vehicle and must sign the report if any defects or deficiencies were previously noted to certify that the required repairs have been performed.

As you can see, there are number of things that a trucking company and its drivers are required to do and there a number of records that they are required to keep. Hiring an experienced attorney that knows the applicable regulations and the critical records to request provides a tremendous advantage and typically facilitates a better outcome.

Experienced Maryland personal injury attorneys can help parents or guardians recovery money for injuries suffered by their children in automobile accidents. Whether or not the parent a guardian was involved in the car crash that injured the child is irrelevant to whether a parent/guardian can collect on behalf of the minor child.

Continue reading "Parents may collect for injuries on behalf of a minor child" »

Metro has agreed to pay $2.3 million to settle a wrongful death lawsuit brought by a man whose wife was killed when she was struck by a Metrobus last year. The man who brought the lawsuit wanted to hold Metro accountable when it struck and killed his wife and his wife's friend, both of whom were walking in a crosswalk at the time of the incident.

In Maryland, every year numerous individuals are injured by the negligence of the drivers and operators of various methods of mass transportation, whether it's an MTA bus, the Lightrail or the Metro. When mass transit operators have caused injury, through error or negligence, it is important that they be held accountable. This level of accountability is a profound way to bring about changes that may be advantageous to, and further protect, the health and welfare of the public in general. This level of accountability is also a means to redress whatever wrong or violation may have occurred.

When an individual is seriously injured in a collision involving a bus, metro train, Lightrail or other means of mass transportation, it is important to consult an experienced trial lawyer to determine whether a lawsuit is warranted and necessary. Such cases are extremely important to pursue so that adequate compensation can be obtained for an injured victim so that he or she can get the best medical and other care under the circumstances.

The attorneys at Silverman Thompson Slutkin & White have handled a number of personal injury and/or wrongful death cases involving buses, trains and other means of mass transportation. For a free consultation please contact us at www.mdattorney.com.

As an experienced Maryland personal injury lawyer, I see many injured victims in automobile accidents who are afraid to seek recovery for damages because they either are driving uninsured or their driver's license is suspended.

Maryland law does not discriminate against victims of other people's negligence because they are uninsured or their driver's license is suspended. Maryland accident or negligence law only recognizes contributory negligence. Driving without insurance or a valid Maryland driver's license is not recognized as contributory negligence in Maryland. Accident victims in Maryland can proceed to recover damages despite these perceived problems. To learn more about victim's rights in Maryland, please contact the personal injury lawyers at Silverman, Thompson , Slutkin & White for a free consultation.

Persons injured in automobile accidents in Maryland may be eligible for Personal Injury Protection (PIP). Personal Injury Protection is a common no-fault insurance provision which benefits persons injured in automobile accidents to collect money as reimbursement for medical bills and lost wages. Most Maryland automobile insurance policies are written to allow up to $2500.00 in PIP benefits. Some Maryland insurers will allow for up to $10,000.00 in PIP benefits for injured persons.

Eligible injured parties may include both drivers or passengers in automobile or truck accidents. A person may be excluded from recovering PIP benefits for personal injury or lost wages if they previously waived PIP on their own automobile policy. For injured persons who do not have a Maryland automobile insurance policy, they are normally eligible for PIP benefits as long as they do not live in the same household with someone who has a Maryland automobile insurance policy and has waived PIP benefits.

Continue reading "Maryland Automobile Accidents-Personal Injury Protection (PIP)" »

Experienced Maryland Personal Injury Lawyers will be able to properly advise passengers who are injured while riding in taxi cabs or buses in Maryland.

Continue reading "Maryland Personal Injury Lawyers- Injured passengers in taxi accidents or bus accidents" »

The doctrine of respondeat superior, in Maryland, allows an employer to be held vicariously liable for the tortious 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.

Continue reading "Maryland Personal Injury Law-Respondeat Superior" »

Maryland personal injury victims have different legal rights. Injured passengers who are injured in car accidents in Maryland may recover from several different possible insurance policies.

Continue reading "Maryland Auto Accidents-Injured Passengers" »

Maryland uninsured/underinsured motorist statute is intended to protect innocent victims from the nelgigent conduct of irresponsible drivers who drive without insurance. Maryland courts have demonstrated a tendency to liberally construe the uninsured/undersinured motorist statute to ensure that, when appropriate, the victims of automobile accidents are adequately compensated for the personal injuries they may suffer as a result of such accidents.

Historically, insurance companies have attempted to thwart Maryland's policy of protecting innocent victims in automobile accident cases. For example, previously, an injured person who made a claim for the limits available under an at-fault party's liability policy was prevented by his or her uninsured/underinsured motorist carrier from giving the liability carrier a full release of the claim. As a result, the injured person usually became caught in a situation where the liability carrier would not give them the limits of the at-fault party's policy without a release and the uninsured/underinsured motorist carrier would not allow them to give a release. The innocent party usually got stuck between a rock and a hard place since they were effectively prevented from recovering a settlement from either carrier. This problem caused unnecessary delays in settlement and hurt those injured as a result of the irresponsible and negligent acts of others.

Maryland lawmakers attempted to eliminate this problem by requiring the uninsured/underinsured motorist carrier to do one of two things: (1) either allow the injured party to settle with the at-fault party's liability carrier and provide a release; or (2) pay the injured victim directly if it intended to preserve subrogation rights against the at-fault party. Under this scheme, the innocent injured party gets his or her money more quickly.

Under Maryland personal injury law, the driver of an "emergency vehicle" cannot be sued in his or her individual capacity for damages resulting from negligent conduct committed while operating an emergency vehicle in the course of providing "emergency service." An "emergency vehicle" includes police vehicles. "Emergency service" includes responses to any emergency call or the pursuit of a suspected criminal. This shield from a personal injury lawsuit does not apply to malicious acts or acts of "gross neligence."

The fact that a police officer is operating a vehicle without emergency signals, such as lights or siren, does not mean that the officer is operating a "non-emergency vehicle." Under Maryland personal injury law, even under such circumstances, a lawsuit still may not be brought against the driver for negligent conduct committed while providing emergency service.

This shield of immunity for the negligent acts of the operator of an emergency vehicle does not apply to the owner or lessee of the emergency vehicle in question. In other words, a personal injury action may be brought against the owner or lessee of the emergency vehicle, but such liability is limited to the amount of the minimum coverage provided for in the applicable insurance policy.