Maryland Injury Attorneys Blog

The Maryland Court of Special Appeals overturned a Talbot County Circuit Court Judge's ruling that a mother could not sue a commercial ambulance company for negligence, last Thursday, holding that the trial judge erred in his interpretation of the Maryland Good Samaritan Statute.

Our Annapolis Maryland medical malpractice attorneys have more than 30 years of experience representing the rights of Plaintiffs who have suffered damages due to the negligence of others.

In Murray v. Transcare Maryland, TransCare argued that as a commercial ambulance company it was entitled to immunity based on the Maryland Good Samaritan State and the Maryland Fire and Rescue Act. The Court of Special Appeals panel held that although Maryland State law protects municipal firefighter and rescue operators from liability, both the Maryland Fire and Rescue Act and the Maryland Good Samaritan Statute, do not protect commercial ambulance services, such as the services provided by TransCare, from liability. The Court's decision allows the Plaintiff to pursue a claim against TransCare.

The events at issue occurred on November 15, 2007, when an air transport company was required to transport a child from Memorial Hospital at Easton to University of Maryland Medical System's (UMMS) Pediatric Intensive Care Unit, because the Easton hospital was not equipped to manage an intubated child. TransCare employed a paramedic on board the transport helicopter who failed to find an oxygen mask after the airway of the child, Bryson Murray, became blocked by a breathing tube.

Unable to find an oxygen mask on board, the air transport required an emergency landing before a mask could be found, and by that time the child had suffered permanent brain damage.

Continue reading "Maryland Court of Special Appeals holds Good Samaritan Statute does not apply to companies" »

The Maryland Court of Appeals last Friday upheld a Baltimore County trial court's denial of a physician's motion for a new trial, after a jury awarded $13 million to a family whose child was born with severe cerebral palsy. The jury found that the physician breached his duty to obtain the mother's informed consent to treatment when he treated her for a partial placental abruption, by failing to inform her of the risks and available alternative treatments related to changes in her pregnancy.

Our Annapolis Maryland medical malpractice attorneys have more than 30 years experiments representing plaintiffs in cases involving catastrophic birth injuries.

The case Spangler v. McQuitty et al, marked the second time the Court of Appeals examined the same set of facts. In 2009, the Court of Appeals held in McQuitty I that a patient may bring an informed consent claim in the absence of a battery or affirmative violation of the patient's physicial integrity because a practitioner's duty to inform a patient of material information that the practitioner knows or ought to know would be significant to a reasonable person in the patient's position in deciding whether or not to submit to a particular medical treatment or procedure.

After overturning the trial court's initial grant of judgment notwithstanding the verdict, the Court of Appeals remanded the case to the Baltimore County Circuit Court to address Dr. Spangler's motion for remittur, which is a motion to reduce damages.

On remand, the trial court rejected Dr. Spangler's request for remittur and post-trial relief. Dr. Spangler appealed, and the Court of Appeals granted a writ of certiorari to hear the case.

Prior to the trial court's decision on Dr. Spangler's motion for remittur, the child unfortunately died.

In last week's decision, the Court of Appeals for the first time addressed the effect of a party's death on a jury verdict for future medical expenses. The jury awarded the child's parents $8,442,515 in future medical expenses, which Dr. Spangler argued the parents stopped incurring after their child died.

The Court ultimately held that while some states like Wisconsin have statutes to address such situations, Maryland does not. Although Maryland does have a statute permitting future economic damages to be annuitized, the trial court exercised its discretion not to grant an annuity award, which was not challenged on appeal.

In the absence of such statute addressing cessation of future medical damages, the Court joined several others states in deciding that "finality is the valued norm." In other words, the Court granted deference to the jury's verdict, which was likely based on a projections based on Plaintiff's life expectancy.

Continue reading "Maryland Court of Appeals upholds multi-million dollar medical malpractice judgment" »

A Utah family who lost two children from a pesticide that was misapplied by an exterminator outside their home settled a lawsuit against the company that employed the exterminator for an undisclosed amount last month.

Our Annapolis Maryland Injury Attorneys have more than 30 years representing Plaintiffs who have been injured by the negligence of others, including home contractors.

The family's lawsuit alleged that an exterminator for Bugman Pest and Lawn, Inc., placed Fumitoxin pellets within a burrow system that was less than 15 feet from the family's home. Fumitoxin is a rat poison. As result of this pesticide application, which was contrary to the manufacturer's specifications, five of six members of the family became sick, and the family tragically lost their 4-year-old and 15-month-old daughters.

The Utah Medical Examiner's office found elevated phosphine levels in the bodies of the two children. State authorities attributed the elevated phosphine levels to inhalation of fumes from the rat poison.

The family's lawsuit sought damages to compensate the family for negligence, infliction of emotional distress, nuisance and "abnormally dangerous activities" that were allegedly committed by the company and its employee.

The employee who administered the pesticide pleaded guilty in United States District Court in October, admitting that he applied Fumitoxin pellets within 15 feet of the family home in violation of Federal Environmental Protection Laws. He acknowledged that the application was inconsistent with the product's labeling and exceeded the required dosage. Prosecutors recommended a jail sentence of six months, followed by six months of home confinement.

The company owner, Raymond Wilson Sr., pleaded guilty and will be banned from purchasing pesticides for three years, which will likely put the company out of business.

As a result of the deaths of the two children, the Environmental Protection Agency prohibited residential use of Fumitoxin. The Utah Department of Agriculture and Food also tightened accountability requirements, mandating that consumers be notified in advance if any product with a "Danger" label is used at their home.

Continue reading "Family settles lawsuit for misapplied pesticide that killed two children" »

A Connecticut man who suffered a tramautic brain injury was awarded a $10 million verdict against Segway scooter company last week for the company's failure to provide a helmet during a 2009 demonstration at Southern Connecticut State University.

Our Baltimore Maryland injury attorneys and Annapolis Maryland injury attorneys have more than 30 years of experience representing victims of traumatic head injuries as a result of another party's negligence.

The Plaintiff, John Ezzo, was a student at Southern Connecticut where on September 16, 2009, Segway ran a program called "the Segway Challenge," an event to benefit the Special Olympics. The program, which was held in the school's ballroom, involved an obstacle course designed by Segway employees.

The Segway employees, however, did not bring helmets and Ezzo, at the suggestion of Special Olympic volunteers, rode the Segway through the obstacle course blindfolded. While riding blindfolded, Ezzo fell backwards and hit his head on the floor resulting in a traumatic brain injury.

As a result of the brain injury, Plaintiff's counsel argued that Ezzo dropped out of college. He became a handyman, unable to pursue his dream of becoming a police officer.

The jury forewoman cited the manufacturer's failure to follow its own safety requirements, which specified that its employees wear helmets while operating the equipment.
The $10 million that the jury awarded the Plaintiff was for non-economic damages as well as his permanent impairment.

Ironically, the owner of Segway, Inc., the manufacturer of the Segway HT also died after falling off of a cliff while operating a Segway. Jimi Heselden died in September 2010 after falling 80 feet.

Insurance companies, such as Progressive, have begun to offer Segway-specific insurance policies to cover accidents related to Segways.

Continue reading "Jury awards man $10 million for scooter injury" »

Two recent plaintiff-friendly Maryland Court of Appeals decisions have refined the "assumption of risk" defense that is often raised in personal injury and accident cases.

Our Annapolis Maryland Accident Attoneys have years of experience representing plaintiffs in personal injury cases as a result of accidents, including slip and fall cases.

Both cases, Poole v. Coakley, and Thomas v. Panco Management, concern submission of personal injury cases to the jury in light of the defense of assumption of risk. In both cases, the trial judge did not submit the issue of negligence to the jury. The Maryland Court of Appeals held that both trial judges erred in their rulings.

The Maryland Civil Pattern Jury Instructions currently defines assumption of the risk as follows: "A Plaintiff cannot recover if the plaintiff has assumed the risk of injury. A person assumes the risk of an injury if that person knows and understands the risk of an existing danger or reasonably should have known and understood the risk of an existing danger, and voluntarily chooses to encounter the risk."

After these two decisions, the Civil Pattern Jury Instruction will likely be modified to indicate that a person assumes the Risk only if he actually knew of an existing danger, not just that he "would, should, or could" have known of an existing danger.

The Poole case concerned the liability of a construction company for the injuries of a plaintiff who slipped on "black ice" while walking through a stream of water through an otherwise icy parking lot. The nature of the "black ice" was such that the plaintiff did not actually know that the danger was present, and therefore the Court of Appeals held it was error to grant the defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment on the issue of assumption of risk.

The Thomas case concerned the liability of an apartment management company for a tenant's injuries after she slipped on "Black Ice." Her testimony was that the "black ice" was positioned near the only entry and exit for her building. The trial judge granted Defendant's Motion for Judgment, holding that the Plaintiff assumed the risk of her injuries. The Court of Appeals reversed holding that Plaintiff's knowledge of the risk of slipping on black ice, and the voluntariness of her conduct were questions of fact to be resolved by the jury, rather than the trial judge.

Both cases will likely be retried, where a jury will determine whether the defendants were negligent.

Continue reading "Maryland assumption of risk defense requires actual knowledge of risk" »

A Portland, Oregon couple, filed a lawsuit seeking $23 million in damages over the practitioners' late diagnosis of their second son's Duchenne muscular dystrophy. As a result of the late diagnosis, the parents allege they were denied the opportunity to exercise "reproductive choices," prior to their third son being born with the same condition.

Our Annapolis and Baltimore Medical Malpractice Attorneys have years of experience representing Plaintiffs whose children have been affected by catastrophic birth injuries. These injuries have a lasting emotional and financial impact on parents, as they must often pay for a lifetime of medical care and see their children subjected to pain and suffering.

The Oregon lawsuit alleges that due to the negligence of the defendants, the parents will watch both boys lose the ability to walk by their early teens and will ultimately die from the progressive condition.

The first son was born in 2003. The lawsuit alleges that the first son immediately showed developmental abnormalities after birth. Although the parents sought medical help, the son was not diagnosed with the condition until October 2010, which was two years after their third son was born. Their third son is also affected by the disease.

The suit alleges that the defendants failed to recognize the second son's abnormalities and failed to diagnose him, and moreover failed to advise them of the likelihood of a subsequent child having the same condition.

Duchenne's muscular dystrophy is a condition that affects one in 3,000 boys, which includes delays in walking, trouble going up stairs, frequent falls and large calf muscles. There is no known cure.

Cases like this are often difficult and sensitive, because such cases could send a negative message to children when they learn that their parents may wish that they were not born. Additionally, these cases might suggest that a child that is handicapped is less desirable than a non-handicapped child. These critiques overlook the emotional and painful impact these issues have on families.

Continue reading "Parents sue hospital, pediatrician for faulty genetic counseling" »

If you haven't heard yet, there are about 56 lions and tigers and bears that escaped and are 1 remaining monkey that escaped and is on the loose from a Zanesville, Ohio preserve Monday after the owner of the property, Terry Thompson, apparently decided to release all of the animals from his property and then decided killed himself. This has certainly disrupted life in Ohio, as the local school district canceled class in light of the threat of attack.

Our Annapolis Maryland injury attorneys and Annapolis Maryland Dog Bite attorneys often receive calls from those who have the misfortune of being the victim of dog bites from another's pet. The law contemplates a remedy for a victim against the owner, although the remedy is different depending on whether the animal is a wild animal or domesticated animal.

Under Maryland law, an animal owner is Strictly Liable for injuries caused by wild animals as long as the injured person did nothing to bring about his or her injury. In other words, by the very nature of Mr. Thompson maintaining the lions, tigers and bears as pets, he is responsible for any damages they cause, whether it is damage to person or property. Since Mr. Thompson is now deceased, if one of Mr. Thompson's animals attacks a human or damages another's property, a claim will likely be made against his estate.

Domesticated animals, like dogs and cats, are treated differently. For an owner of a domesticated pet to be proven liable, an owner is not strictly liable for injuries caused by domestic animals unless the owner has knowledge of the animal's dangerous propensities that are not common to the species. In other words, the owner has to know that the animal has the propensity to attack humans.

You might have heard the phrase that "every dog gets one free bite." In other words, it is often misunderstood that unless the dog has bitten before then there is no owner liability. That is not always true, because an owner can also be liable for negligence when he exerts ineffective control over his animal where an injury is likely to occur.

If the dog has bitten a person before, however, obviously the owner is on notice of the animal's tendencies and that certainly supports proving liability. If an owner knows that his dog is vicious, then the owner will be strictly liable for the injuries his animal causes, just like the owner of a wild animal.

Continue reading "Ohio wild animal escape prompts discussion on Maryland Animal Law" »

A Jefferson County, Kentucky Jury awarded $1.4 million in damages to a woman, whose premature baby was decapitated during delivery at a local hospital in 2006.

Our Baltimore Annapolis Maryland Medical Malpractice Attorneys have years of experience representing Plaintiffs who have been affected by traumatic birth injuries.

The jury found the two doctors who conducted the procedure, Dr. Joseph Bilotta and Dr. William Koontz, liable for the full extent of the awarded damages. Meanwhile, the hospital and nurses involved in the case were held not liable.

All parties to the suit acknowledged that it was an extremely rare occurrence that the fetus was decapitated during birth. The doctors' attorney argued to the jury that the baby would not have survived regardless of the doctors and nurses actions, because the pregnancy was only about 21 weeks in duration.

The Plaintiff's attorney, however, argued that the mother was about 24 weeks into the pregnancy, where babies are potentially viable.

The Plaintiffs argued that the doctors failed to remove a cerclage, a device resembling a string, which is a surgical tool used to keep the Plaintiff's cervix closed. When the fetus was being delivered, the string acted "as a noose" which caused the decapitation.

The doctor acknowledged that he initially tried to deliver the baby with the cerclage intact, but eventually removed it. But the allegation was that it was removed too late in the procedure.

The $1.4 million the jury awarded was to compensate the mother, Micheatria Donelson, for her pain and suffering. Her attorneys argued that she is now depressed, has panic attacks and is unable to sleep more than a few hours each night.

On a slightly less somber note, she is now the mother of a two-year-old daughter.

Continue reading "Jury awards $1.4 million for traumatic birth injury" »

A Chicago apartment management company settled Tuesday a wrongful death suit brought by the mother of a 24-year-old who suffered a severe brain injury and ultimately death after falling from the second floor porch of his girlfriend's apartment.

Our Maryland attorneys have years of experience successfully representing Plaintiffs who have been catastrophically injured by accidents caused by the negligence of others.

The case settled for $975,000. The action was brought by Sean Heflin's mother, Jane Heflin, and alleged that the porch railings were about 10 inches lower than the 42 inches required by the Chicago building code. The suit was brought against the apartment building's owner, Stammich Management.

In Illinois, violation of an ordinance, establishes "negligence per se." In other words, the fact that the Management company maintained railings that were 10 inches lower than the Chicago building code conclusively creates a presumption that the management breached a duty to exercise reasonable care. At trial, the Plaintiff would still need to prove that the management company's breach of the duty caused the injuries and that Plaintiff suffered damages.

In Maryland, the law is subtly different. Violation of a statute or ordinance does not constitute negligence per se, but is generally considered evidence of negligence. In other words, Plaintiff still needs to prove that the defendant maintained a duty and breached his or her duty in addition to proving causation and damages.

Continue reading "Violation of building code nets settlement for victim's mother" »

A Kanawha County, West Virginia jury awarded an 87-year old woman's family $91.5 million after finding that low staffing levels at a nursing home led to her death.

Our Maryland nursing home neglect attorneys have substantial experience in representing Plaintiff's who have suffered catastrophic injuries as a result of nursing home negligence.

The substantial verdict was delivered after a two-week trial where Plaintiffs alleged that workers at Heartland of Charleston (W.V.) failed to feed and care for Dorothy Davis, who died of complications from dehydration after a three week stay at the facility.

The jury deliberated for two hours before awarding $11.5 million in compensatory damages and $80 million in punitive damages.

The testimony reflected that in the three week period Davis stayed at Heartland, she lost 15 pounds, she became unresponsive and suffered severe dehydration. She died one day after her transfer to a different hospital.

Plaintiffs alleged that Heartland lacked sufficient nurses on staff to care for the woman, which was supported by the testimony of former Heartland employees. In 2009, the nursing home had an employee turnover rate of 112 percent.

Heartland is owned by a parent corporation called Manorcare that has assets of $8 billion.

The nursing home defended on the grounds that the woman's death certificate states that she died of Alzheimer's, not dehydration and that staff did not breach the standard of care in the treatment of the woman.

Carlyle Group, a private equity firm that owns Manorcare, stated that it will appeal the verdict.

Continue reading "Jury awards family $91.5 million for nursing home neglect" »

Two Ohio men sued a woman who in 2009 they pulled to safety from a burning vehicle , when they subsequently learned that the woman's accident resulted when she was attempting to kill herself.

Our Maryland Accident Attorneys have significant experience representing plaintiffs who have been injured by another's negligence.

The two men--David Kelley and Mark Kinkaid--claim that they were both driving when they saw a bumper lying in the roadway and gray smoke coming from a distance. The men hopped a barbed-wire fence, knocked down trees and slid down a steep embankment to attempt to assist the woman in the vehicle. The woman apparently told officers after the accident that she was arguing with someone the day of the crash and wanted to end her life.

Two years later, both have sued the woman in Marion County Common Pleas Court in Ohio seeking damages of at least $25,000 as a result of learning that the crash was her fault and suffering permanent injuries.

With regard to his injuries, Kelley states that his lungs were badly damaged from the heavy smoke and that he now can't carry a laundry basket up the stairs of his home. Furthermore, he said the fire burnt the hair from his body and melted the cell phone in his pocket.

The Ohio case is based on a concept known as the "Rescue Doctrine," that states that if people who are being rescued are negligent or reckless when they created the danger, they could be liable if a rescuer acted reasonably and can prove injuries.

Maryland recognizes the concept of the "rescue doctrine," which is a narrowly chiseled exception to the defense of assumption of risk, which focuses on the element of voluntariness and applies to emergency situations involving imminent peril, in which an individual acts to save the life or property of another. See, e.g., Warsham v. Muscatello, 189 Md. App. 620, 645 (2009). This would undoubtedly be asserted by the Plaintiffs if this case arose in Maryland.

Maryland also, however, recognizes the common law defense of "assumption of risk." An assumption of risk is a defense to negligence if the plaintiff 1) had knowledge of the risk of danger, 2) appreciated the risk, and 3) voluntarily exposed himself or herself to that risk. See, e.g., Crews v. Hollenbach, 358 Md. 627, 643-44 (2000). This defense would likely be asserted by the defendant if this case rose in Maryland.

Continue reading "Men sue woman who attempted suicide for injuries sustained in her rescue" »

A Maryland Circuit Court Judge ruled last Friday that a civil lawsuit against a Montgomery County Bar for knowingly serving a drunken patron who later killed a 10-year-old girl in a car accident could continue. The ruling contradicts long-settled Maryland case law, but will certainly provoke discussion about Maryland's dram shop liability laws.

Our Maryland injury attorneys have significant experience representing Plaintiffs who have suffered catastrophic injuries as a result of another's negligence in car accidents.

The Judge's ruling affects the lawsuit filed by William J. Warr, Jr., who filed a $3.25 million lawsuit in Montgomery County, Maryland against the owners of Dogfish Head Alehouse. The lawsuit alleges that the bar sold alcohol to a patron, knowing that the patron was already drunk, and allowing him to drive off in his Land Rover on August 21, 2008. The patron eventually drove 100 miles per hour before he crashed into Warr's Jeep Cherokee and killed his granddaughter and severely injured Warr, his wife and another granddaughter.

The patron, Michael Eaton, was sentenced to 8 years in jail and is not a party to the lawsuit.

The Court of Appeals last addressed this issue in the case of Felder v. Butler. In Felder, the Plaintiff sued a bar owner who continuously served a patron who was alleged to have been visibly under the influence of alcohol. She ended up striking a vehicle driven by the Plaintiff.

The Felder Court upheld the common law rule that an innocent third party does not have a cause of action against a vendor for injuries suffered as a result of the intoxication of the vendor's patron. The Court recognized that other state legislatures have established laws permitting lawsuits against selling alcohol to an intoxicated person. The Court reasoned that permitting such a lawsuit, without applicable legislation, would usurp the role of the legislature.

The Maryland General Assembly has periodically attempted to draft such legislation, but such bills (e.g. House Bill 1120) have not succeeded. The restaurant lobby has vocally opposed such bills and as recent as this year these efforts have failed.

The Judge's ruling is unusual because procedurally a circuit court judge is bound by precedent of the Maryland Court of Appeals. Under the principle of stare decisis, a trial judge would usually be mandated to grant a defendant's motion to dismiss and allow the Plaintiff to challenge the judge's decision in the Court of Special Appeals.

The Montgomery County Judge, however, believes that "times have changed" since the Felder decision, and that "a bar owner who continuously serves drinks to intoxicated individuals and makes no attempt to ensure that the individual has alternative means home should expect that the intoxicated person can get into an accident."

Continue reading "Maryland Circuit Court Judge permits civil suit against bar that served drunk patron" »

Carmakers are not shielded from liability when they manufacture cars that comply with federal regulations, but are alleged to be defective under state tort law, the Supreme Court unanimously held on Feb. 23.

In Williamson v. Mazda Motor of America, the Supreme Court held that a California family can continue its lawsuit alleging that Mazda's installation of a lap belt in the middle-rear seat in the 1993 Mazda MPV, even though the seat belt technically complied with the federal standard at the time it was manufactured. Our Annapolis Maryland Injury Attorneys have substantial experience aiding injuring people who have been injured by defective products.

The Williamson family argued in California State Court that the defective seatbelt system, which involved just a lap belt in the second-row middle sea, caused the death of their daughter Thanh Williamson.

Mazda argued that its seatbelt system complied with the federal standard when the vehicle was manufactured in 1993. The Federal Standard at the time gave automakers the choice of a lap belt or a lap and shoulder harness seatbelt in the middle rear-suit. Mazda argued that the Federal standard essentially gave Mazda a choice.

The California Courts agreed with Mazda, holding the doctrine of preemption applied. Under a doctrine called pre-emption, when a state law conflicts with a federal law, the federal law usually wins out.

Continue reading "Carmaker's Compliance with Federal Safety Regulations does not Bar Liability" »

An 18-year-old Kentucky Wrestling fan filed suit this week against World Wrestling Entertainment and two wrestlers alleging the company's negligence combined with the negligence of two wrestlers caused the fan, then 7 years old, to sustain an injury to his right leg and knee, according to a news report.

Our Annapolis Maryland injury attorneys have experience representing plaintiffs who have suffered personal injury accidents by another party's negligence.

The Complaint names World Wresting Entertainment and wrestlers The Rock and Triple H. Plaintiff Ronald Basham, III, alleges that due to the negligent "script" of the match (i.e. the wrestlers continuing their match outside of the ring in the vicinity of fans), that the WWE breached a duty in failing to warn spectators that they could be injured by the wrestlers.

Basham's attorney alleges that Basham has incurred more than $37,000 in damages since the incident.

Maryland, like Kentucky, has a statute of limitations that requires a lawsuit for personal injury to be brought within 3 years of the incident. One exception, however, is the case of minors. In Maryland, the statute of limitations for a minor generally begins to run at the age of 18, so a minor generally has to the age of 21 to bring a personal injury action.

The problem, however, is that the longer a Plaintiff is removed from the incident - there is a greater likelihood that a Defendant will defend on the grounds that something else caused the injury. Apparently Basham also plays football and races (and crashes) stock cars, also possible sources of ongoing leg and knee injuries. That's not a commentary on Basham's suit, he very well likely may have a meritorious claim, but it is a reality faced by many Plaintiffs.