Maryland Accident Attorney Blog

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 ›