Maryland Accident Attorney Blog

Truck Accident Causing Severe Injuries

Published on: March 16, 2010 | by Andrew G. Slutkin

A California jury has awarded an Oregon girl $24.3 million in damages for being run over by a tractor trailer truck. The defendant was a transport company that was the carrier, insurer and guarantor of delivery for the truck’s contents.
At the time of the accident, the girl was 14. She was run over when the truck driver, who actually was the girl’s father drove away from a rest break without realizing that his daughter was still outside the truck. The girl was caught under the truck’s rear wheels and suffered severe injuries to her entire lower body that will require many future surgeries. Interestingly, the judge in the case ruled that the jury would not be told that it was the girl’s father who caused the accident, as that fact was irrelevant to the issue of negligence and damages. A copy of an article regarding the case can be found here.

My name is Andrew Slutkin. As an experienced Baltimore, Maryland attorney who specializes in catastrophic injury cases, I have successfully handled a number of truck accident cases. These cases require aggressive representation as the insurers and attorneys for the trucks almost always fight these cases tooth and nail. Knowledge of the insurance regulations and federal regulations regarding trucks also is important. To see some of the cases I have handled, click here.

Slip and Falls on Ice in Maryland-A Slippery Legal Slope!

Published on: February 8, 2010 | by Steven D. Silverman

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 ›

Drowning Death In Septic Tank

Published on: February 2, 2010 | by Avery Strachan

Following the drowning death of their three-year-old son in a septic tank, a Montana family recently filed a lawsuit against their local water and sewer district. In 2007, the young boy, while playing in a driveway at a family friend’s home, fell into the tank and drowned. In the lawsuit, the Montana family claimed that local district officials were negligent in two ways: (1) the septic system was placed to close to the driveway; and (2) that the district was negligent in failing to install what is known as a “kid-catcher” safety device at the opening of the tank, a saftey feature that would have prevented their son’s death.

As an experienced Baltimore, Maryland lawyer, I have successfully handled prior drowning deaths in septic tanks or similar sewage facilities. Because of the well-known hazard that these tanks/facilities pose to small children, there are clear standards and safety features that have been adopted by a variety of professional organizations, standards/features that are designed to prevent these types of tragedies. Unfortunately, due to the large number of these older tanks that remain unmarked and/or unidentified on individuals’ properties, these preventable tragedies continue to this day. If a loved one has been injured or died as a result of a similar tragedy, call the lawyers at STSW for a free consultation.

Realtor Malpractice and Filing a Grievance with the Board of Realtors for Misconduct

Published on: January 21, 2010 | by Steven D. Silverman

Our Maryland plaintiff’s attorneys are experienced in handling cases involving Marylanders who are injured by unscrupulous realtors. Often we prosecute malpractice claims against the realtor for claims such as fraud or conflict of interest. During the course of this representation, we are asked how to file a complaint with the Board against these realtors for sanctions against the public.

Below is our internal memo which outlines the process:

(1) File complaint with The Greater Baltimore Board of REALTORS (GBBR) for violating Code of Ethics a. If found to be in violation of Code of Ethics – REALTOR may be subject to a fine, suspension of membership or expulsion from the association i. Must cite which section of Code of Ethics they violated
b. Claim = per incident
i. CANNOT process claims for monetary damages
ii. If legal action has been filed with Courts, CANNOT consider any complaint filed with GBBR until legal action has been resolved
iii. Complaint must be filed 180 days after facts were known
iv. Individual complaint being filed against must be member of GBBR
c. Copies of application to file complaint and information from website is attached

(2) File complaint with Maryland Real Estate Commission
a. Only accepts complaints against individuals with real estate licenses
b. Claims brought for violation of Title 17 of Business & Professions Article
i. Claim = per incident
ii. May recover compensation from Guaranty Fund for an actual loss
1. May not exceed $25,000 per claim
2. Claim must (1) be based on an act or omission of licensed real estate broker/sales person; (2) involve transaction that relates to real estate in MD; and (3) is based on an act or mission in which money or property is obtained by theft, embezzlement, false pretenses or forgery; or constitutes fraud or misrepresentation
c. If found to be in violation, sanctions include – license revoked, required to pay a fine, license suspended, reprimands
i. Copies of application to file complaint and information from website is attached
ii. Examples of violations & penalties imposed; complaints which were denied; and complaints which were awarded funds from the Guaranty Fund are attached
Continue Reading ›

Maryland Maritime Law: A Discussion on the Current State of the Law

Published on: January 21, 2010 | by Steven D. Silverman

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).

Facts: Four friends boarded a boat and traveled to a bar. After consuming a variety of alcoholic drinks, the friends returned to the boat and headed back to the marina. On the way back, the conditions worsened (wind increased, water was choppy, and it was dark). While traversing the Chesapeake Bay, the captain (one of the four friends), abruptly throttled back, thereby slowing the boat, but did not anchor. The captain announced that he wanted to take a swim, and dove into the Bay, jumping from the seat at the helm. Then, one of the four friends, Ms. Matthews, either fell or jumped into the water. Rescue attempts by the friends failed. The US Coast Guard and a helicopter could not locate Ms. Matthews. Two days later, Ms. Matthews’ fully clothed body was found. Cause of death was drowning.

Analysis:

When is Maritime Law Applicable Under Federal Law?

Published on: January 21, 2010 | by Steven D. Silverman

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 ›

Baltimore Man Killed in Hit and Run Accident

Published on: December 14, 2009 | by Silverman, Thompson, Slutkin & White

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 ›

Common Defenses Used Against Bicyclists Under Maryland Liability Law

Published on: October 19, 2009 | by Steven D. Silverman

Liability defenses often used by drivers against bicyclist involved in accidents in Maryland include:

A. Contributory Negligence
Maryland recognizes the defense of contributory negligence as a complete bar to a plaintiff’s recovery. In order to succeed in asserting this defense, the driver of a vehicle that strikes a cyclist would have to show that the bicyclist deviated from the standard of ordinary care. Usually questions of contributory negligence in Maryland are resolved by the jury. To justify withdrawal of a case from the jury on grounds of contributory negligence, “the evidence must show an act so decisively negligent as to leave no room for difference of opinion thereon by reasonable minds.” Heffner, 196 Md. At 473, 77 A.2d at 131.

Factors a jury might consider in deciding whether a bicyclist exercised reasonable care may include precautions that a reasonable bicyclist would have taken under similar circumstances. Though not codified by Maryland law, published safety guidelines may be relevant to an examination of whether a bicyclist exercised ordinary care. The League of American Bicyclists suggests that bicyclists wear reflective or brightly colored clothing and that they yield to traffic in the same destination lane.

B. Assumption of the Risk

In Maryland, an assertion of the defense of assumption of the risk requires a showing that (1) the plaintiff had knowledge of the risk of the danger, (2) the plaintiff appreciated that risk, and (3) the plaintiff voluntarily confronted the risk of danger. Piquette v. Stevens, 128 Md. App. 590, 739 A.2d 905 (1999). Whether a plaintiff has assumed the risk is generally a question for the jury, unless it is clear that the plaintiff must have understood the danger, and then it is determined by the court. Id. at 599. In Piquette v. Stevens, the Court of Special Appeals reversed a determination by the trial court that a bicyclist had assumed the risk of colliding with a motor vehicle by failing to come to a complete stop at a stop sign. Id. at 600. The bicyclist was aware of an approaching vehicle, but chose to roll through a stop sign and turn to the right. Id. at 600. The court reasoned that “it was not clear that [the bicyclist], certainly a person of normal intelligence, would have anticipated the risk of danger.” Id.
Continue Reading ›

Summary of Maryland Law Regarding Bicyclists on Roadways

Published on: October 19, 2009 | by Steven D. Silverman

• Bicyclists:
– Bicyclists possess all of the same rights and duties as drivers of motor vehicles. Md. Transp. Art. §21-102 – Bicyclists, like drivers of motor vehicles, must exercise ordinary care under the circumstances. Kaffl v. Moran
– Bicyclists must ride as close to the right side of the road as practicable, except when turning left, passing, or traveling on a one way street. Md. Transp. Art. §21-1202 – Operation of a bicycle in violation of a statute does not constitute negligence per se unless the violation is the proximate cause of injury. Miles v. State.

• Drivers of Vehicles:
– Drivers may assume that other drivers will obey the rules of the road and need not anticipate that others will violate the law. Dean v. Redmiles.
– Drivers of motor vehicles owe a duty to exercise due care to avoid colliding with any bicycle ridden by a person. Md. Transp. Art. §21-1209.
– Drivers must exercise greater vigilance when approaching an intersection. Heffner v. Admiral Taxi Service, Inc.
– Drivers approaching a circular green signal, when turning right or left, shall yield right of way to any other vehicle lawfully within the intersection when the signal is shown. Md. Transp. Art. §21-202.

• Turns:
– A person may not turn a vehicle from a direct course on a roadway unless the movement can be made with reasonable safety. Md. Transp. Art. §21-604(b).
– One 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 – A motorist may not, if any other vehicle might be affected by the movement, turn a vehicle without giving a proper signal. 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).
– A driver shall make a right turn as closely as practicable to the right –hand curb of the roadway. Md. Transp. Art. §21-601(a). This requirement is intended to provide further indication of an intent to turn so that the motorist will not be passed on the right. Norris v. Wolfensberger – Vehicles of greater than average size do not enjoy any additional rights. Drivers of trucks, having knowledge of their increased width and length, owe a duty to other drivers on the roadway to take these elements into consideration in the operation of their vehicles. York Manor Express Co. v. State for use of Hawk.
Continue Reading ›

Respective Duty, Liability, and Defenses of Motorists and Bicyclists Traveling on Maryland Roadways

Published on: October 19, 2009 | by Steven D. Silverman

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 ›