Last month, a D.C. jury found that the District Lounge & Grille, a bar (now closed) formerly located in the Adams Morgan section of the District, was liable to the Estate of Julia Bachleitner under the D.C. Dram Shop Statute. The parties had previously agreed that, if the bar was found liable, the damages would be $1 million.
Continue Reading ›
STSW is currently investigating potential criminal and civil claims arising out of the massacre of 13 Navy Yard employees on behalf of several of the victims’ families.
In an effort to help our clients understand the process of negotiating a personal injury claim, I have compiled the following information that I feel is important you understand once the medical bills, lost wage statements and any other “special” damages have been obtained and the negotiating process has begun.
The law firm of Silverman, Thompson, Slutkin & White takes on a limited number of plaintiff’s personal injury cases each month. We limit our intake so we can provide the highest quality representation to each of our clients. To better equip our clients with an understanding of the process, we have broken down the phases of what to expect of our attorney-client relationship.
WBAL is reporting in an online article that the worker killed Tuesday at the Dundalk Marine Terminal has been identified as 46-year-old James Mills Gillus of Dundalk. Mr. Gillus was tragically killed when he was attempting to climb back into his vehicle after he noticed it was rolling backward and was struck by the vehicle. The vehicle he was operating is used to haul dumpsters around the marine terminal. State and Federal Workplace officials are investigating this accident. Mr. Gillus’ family will be entitled to Workers’ Compensation Death Benefits because he was killed during the course and scope of his employment. Additionally, under certain situations, they may be able to recover in a wrongful death action.
Lawyers who practice personal injury and accident law in Maryland and across the United States are often surprised to learn that the United States has a right to recover from third parties the reasonable value of medical care and pay that has been furnished or will be furnished in the future to accident victims. See Army Regulation 27-20
42 U.S.C. §§ 2651-53
In any case where the United States is authorized or required to pay for hospital, medical, surgical, or dental care and treatment under circumstances creating tort liability on a third person, the United States has an independent right to recover from the third person, or his insurer, the reasonable value of care and treatment furnished. The United States has a right to be subrogated to any claim that the injured person has against a third person to the extent of the reasonable care and treatment furnished. The United States may also require that the injured party assign his claim or cause of action against the third person to the extent of that right or claim.
If state law provides an alternative system of compensation or reimbursement for expenses of hospital, medical, surgical, or dental care or treatment under a policy of insurance, contract, medical, or hospital service agreement, or similar agreement, the United States is a third party beneficiary. The United States shall be subrogated to any right or claim the injured person has under the policy, contract, agreement, or arrangement to the extent of the reasonable value of care and treatment.
Continue Reading ›
Under relevant Maryland law, pedestrians generally have the right of way when in a crosswalk, and motorists generally have the right of way outside of a crosswalk. Maryland Transportation Article 21-502 requires a motorist to come to a stop when a pedestrian is crossing the roadway in a crosswalk. Additionally, motorists are required at intersections to look carefully ahead and keep and eye for pedestrians. Outside a crosswalk, motorists generally have the right of way over pedestrians, but still have a duty to avoid striking a pedestrian.
Maryland lawyers who litigate car and truck accidents have a new tool at their disposal thanks to the Maryland Legislature’s imminent passage of a ban on handheld cell phones while driving. The new law will make it illegal for a motorist to text or talk on a cell phone while driving unless connected to a Bluetooth device.
In the 2008 case of Allen v. Marriott, the Court of Special Appeals came down with a frigid decision for plaintiffs who are injured when falling on black ice. The Court of Appeals denied cert. which means the case is the current law in Maryland.
The facts of Allen v. Marriott are as follows:
David Allen and his wife were guests of a Marriott hotel from Feb. 3 -5. On the morning of Feb. 5, the parties checked out of the hotel. Mrs. Allen went to the hotel’s parking lot to retrieve their car, while Mr. Allen was checking out. She drove the car close to the front entrance of the hotel. Mr. Allen walked out of the main entrance, and then proceeded to walk along the (salted) sidewalk toward their vehicle. As Mr. Allen stepped off of the curb, pulling a wheelie suitcase, he slipped and fell on what turned out to be unseen “black ice.”
The issue the presented to the Court was whether a reasonable person under an objective standard, knowing what the Plaintiff knew, would have been aware of the risk and therefore assumed the risk.
In reaching its holding, the Court discussed the following:
The Maryland law on the defense of assumption of risk in cases involving slipping and falling on ice or snow is totally contained within the three decisions of Schroyer v. McNeal, ADM Partnership v. Martin, and Morgan State Univ. v. Walker. In all three cases, the Court of Appeals held that the plaintiffs, as a matter of law, were aware of and voluntarily assumed the risk, based on the circumstantial evidence of their surroundings.
• In Schroyer, the plaintiff injured herself when she walked out onto a parking lot covered with ice and snow. She was aware that ice and snow were slippery, and therefore was aware of the danger posed by an ice and snow covered parking lot. By voluntarily choosing to traverse it, albeit carefully, she intentionally exposed herself to a known risk.
• In ADM, the plaintiff was injured when she slipped and fell on an ice and snow-covered walkway as she returned to her vehicle. The Court of Appeals said that, although it had snowed some 19 hours earlier and the precipitation had ceased, ice and snow surrounded the building, particularly the parking lot directly in front of the building and the entrance walkway. The plaintiff was aware of the ice and unplowed snow surrounding the building, but she felt that she could safely enter the building. The Court stated that “there are certain risks which anyone of adult age must be taken to appreciate: the danger of slipping on ice” is one of them. A person of normal intelligence would have understood the danger, therefore the issue is for the court.
• In Morgan State, the plaintiff went to visit her daughter on the campus of MSU several days after a heavy snowstorm. After driving across a snow and ice-covered parking lot, the plaintiff walked across the ice, fell, and fractured her leg. The Court of Appeals held that the plaintiff “knowingly and voluntarily walked across a snow and ice covered parking lot and injured herself, she assumed the risk of her injuries as a matter of law.” The Court reiterated that the danger of slipping on ice is one of the risks which any one of adult age must be taken to appreciate.
Continue Reading ›
The most recent Maryland Court of Appeals case discussing whether Maritime Law applies can be found in Matthews v. Howell, 359 Md. 152, 753 A.2d 69 (2000).
In many personal injury actions which happen on a boat or on the water, the value of the case and the way lawyers approach the case depends on whether maritime law applies. Originally, maritime or admiralty law was applicable when any claim arose upon the navigable waters of the United States. The Plymouth, 70 U.S. 30 (1866). However, several U.S. Supreme Court cases have changed this rule.
Executive Jet Aviation, Inc. v. City of Cleveland, 409 U.S. 249 (1972): A plane taking off from a runway hit a flock of birds, lost engine power, and crashed into Lake Erie, sinking to its bottom. The plaintiffs sought damages under traditional maritime jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that, for maritime law to be applicable, a court must find, not only that the action accrued upon or in navigable waters, but that the incident alleged in the claim bears a “significant relationship to traditional maritime activity.”
Foremost Insurance Co. v. Richardson, 457 U.S. 668 (1982): Two pleasure boats collided, resulting in the death of a passenger in one of the boats. The Supreme Court held that the collision was actionable under maritime jurisdiction because there is no requirement that maritime activity be an exclusively commercial one. All operations of vessels on navigable waters are subject to uniform rules of conduct. The Court held that “[b]ecause the ‘wrong’ here involves the negligent operation of a vessel on navigable waters . . . it has a sufficient nexus to traditional maritime activity to sustain admiralty jurisdiction.”
Continue Reading ›
Arthur deRoaldes Remanjon, a wedding photographer who also documented Fells Point and New Orleans, died Wednesday when the motorcycle he was driving struck a vehicle in the Tuscany- Canterbury section of North Baltimore. A recent article in the Baltimore Sun, documents the life and achievements of this well-known Baltimore resident and describes the tragic circumstances surrounding his death. Every year, hundreds of Maryland residents are injured or killed in motorcycle accidents around the state. Many of these accidents could have been avoided had the other drivers been paying proper attention and following the rules of the road. As experienced accident attorneys, we can help injured citizens and their families recover for accidents caused by negligent drivers. Our firm has secured numerous large verdicts and settlements on behalf of clients who have been injured by negligent drivers.
As an experienced Maryland trial lawyer, I have handled a number of cases when a store clerk has attacked a customer. One case involved a male cashier attacking a pregnant women. Another case involved a cashier arguing over price with an elderly lady and jumping the counter and beating her. Under these circumstances, personal injury lawyers struggle over who to sue and who pays? Although the law is complex, I have found that when properly pled, most of the time the company or employer can be found responsible.
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?
Continue Reading ›
Maryland plaintiff’s lawyers and defense lawyers are always fighting over venue. Venue in Maryland simply refers to the physical location of the trial. Although it may not seem just, different cases have different values depending on where the lawsuit is brought. Some areas of Maryland have a jury pool which is very conservative while others have a more liberal jury pool. The value of the lawsuit, as opposed to the loss, is drastically affected by venue. The differential in lawsuit value, based upon venue, holds truest in personal injury case. The same case, with the same facts and injuries, is worth substantially less on the Maryland Eastern Shore versus Prince George’s County, for example. We know this because we can track jury verdicts over time and determine a pattern.
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.
Continue Reading ›
When representing a client who my have a potential claim for personal injury against the State of Maryland, Maryland personal Injury lawyers must place the state on proper notice within six months of the incident. Failure to do so could bar any recovery under Maryland law.
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.
Continue Reading ›
Maryland Personal Injury, Accident, and Victim's Rights Blog