Maryland Personal Injury, Accident, and Victim's Rights Blog

Maryland Injury Law-When is an Employer Responsible When a Negligent Employee Causes an Accident?

Published on: July 24, 2008 | by Steven D. Silverman

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 Driver of Motorcycle Killed

Published on: July 24, 2008 | by Steven D. Silverman

A Maryland man was tragically killed yesterday when the motorcycle he was driving was struck head-on by a car that crossed a double yellow line in Carroll County, Maryland.The Baltimore Sun reports that the victim was flown to Maryland Shock Trauma Center in Baltimore and died shortly thereafter. The driver of the vehicle that crossed the double yellow line was 80 years old.

I have represented many seriously injured victims and fatalities from motorcycle accidents in Maryland. Motorcycle accident cases are often tragic because the injuries sustained by the cyclist are often exponentially worse due to the lack of protection. Fortunately Maryland requires motorcycle riders to wear a helmet, but often the head injuries-even with a helmet-are devastating.
Continue Reading ›

$21.62 Million Jury Verdict Against Driver Talking on Cell Phone

Published on: July 22, 2008 | by Kerri Smith

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.

Recovering for injuries suffered in an accident involving a company vehicle.

Published on: July 22, 2008 | by Silverman, Thompson, Slutkin & White

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 ›

Maryland Personal Injury Settlements Involving Minors

Published on: July 21, 2008 | by Steven D. Silverman

Personal injury settlements involving minors in Maryland are strictly governed by the legislature to protect the minor. Under Title 13, Section 402 of the Estates and Trusts Article, Annotated Code of Maryland “it is public policy of the state that any substantial sum of money paid to a minor because of a claim, action, or judgment in tort should be preserved for the benefit of the minor.”

Train Accident Lawyer on Private v. Public Crossings

Published on: July 18, 2008 | by Steven D. Silverman

As an experienced Maryland trial lawyer who has been regularly representing victims and their families in fatal and catastrophic train accidents since 1995, there has been an important but gradual change in Maryland law over the past several decades. This change is in the area of private v. public railroad crossings and how Maryland and other jurisdictions view them as the classification affects victims of train accidents.

The duties owed to individuals at private crossings as compared to public crossings were first enunciated by a Maryland court in Annapolis & B. S. L. R. Co. v. Pumphrey, 72 Md. 82, 19 A. 8, 9 (1890). That Court stated:
There is no statute of this state which imposes upon the (railroad) the duty to give signals of the approach of its trains to a private road or farm crossing. Numerous cases in this state and elsewhere have held that a failure on the part of a railroad company to give proper warnings of the approach of its trains to a public highway or thorofare crossing is an act of culpable negligence; but we are aware of no decision which fixes upon a defendant the like consequence for omitting such warnings as to farm crossings. On the contrary, it has been determined twice by this court that no such obligation exists.

Id.
Furthermore, Maryland traditionally held that where there was no proof of a legalized public crossing, individuals on railroad tracks were considered trespassers. Baltimore v. Welch, 114 Md. 536, 80 A. 170 (1911). The Welch Court stated:
The duty of those in charge of moving railway trains to keep a lookout for and exert care to avoid injuring persons at railway crossings and on public highways where such persons have a right to be, and may be expected to be found is entirely different from the care required of them in respect to the possible presence of trespassers on the railway tracks where, having no right to be, they are not expected to be found. We have repeatedly held . . . that those in charge of the trains have no duty to anticipate that persons will unlawfully go upon the tracks, and consequently the failure to guard in advance against the possible or probable results of such unexpected wrongful presence of persons on the tracks does not constitute negligence on the part of the railroad company whose liability to use care to avoid injuring any person so trespassing begins only when their agents are made aware of his presence and peril.

80 A. at 173 (emphasis added).
Continue Reading ›

Contributory Negligence in Maryland

Published on: July 18, 2008 | by Steven D. Silverman

As an experienced Maryland personal injury lawyer, it is frustrating to that Maryland still follows the arcane doctrine of contributory negligence. As one of four jurisdictions in the United States that follows this doctrine, contributory negligence in Maryland causes congestion in the Maryland trial courts and unfair results for deserving victims.

The doctrine of contributory negligence basically says that if a victim of personal injury is 1% at fault, then that party is 100% barred from recovery anything.

For example; a drunk driver runs a stop sign and smashes into a sober driver. The injured sober driver is paralyzed by the collision. If the case goes to trial and the defense attorney successfully argues that the sober driver is contributory negligent because he was exceeding the speed limit and failed to avoid the collision with the drunk driver, the drunk driver who ran the stop sign pays nothing!
Continue Reading ›

Helpful Tips for Finding Address Information for Defendants in Automobile Accident Cases

Published on: July 16, 2008 | by Kerri Smith

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.

Presenting Medical Evidence in Maryland Courts Without the Support of Expert Testimony

Published on: July 14, 2008 | by Kerri Smith

In Maryland, it is possible to admit medical bills and records at trial without calling a doctor or other health care provider to testify. Section 10-104 of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article of the Maryland Code sets forth the requirements for introducing medical bills and records without the support of witness testimony at trial. This provision can save a client the added expense of having to pay a doctor to testify at trial or in a deposition. In some cases, the cost of such testimony can be considerable. In many personal injury lawsuits or automobile accident cases, particularly in Maryland’s District Courts, it may be more cost-effective to introduce medical bills pursuant to section 10-104. Doing so may actually increase a client’s net recovery because it reduces certain litigation expenses.

Pursuing a Recovery When Injured by an Uninsured Motorist or “Phantom Vehicle”

Published on: July 8, 2008 | by Kerri Smith

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.

Multi-Million Dollar Jury Award in Trucking Accident Case

Published on: July 2, 2008 | by Kerri Smith

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.

Parents may collect for injuries on behalf of a minor child

Published on: June 24, 2008 | by Silverman, Thompson, Slutkin & White

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 ›

Bus Accident Recovery

Published on: June 24, 2008 | by Kerri Smith

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.

Maryland Automobile Accidents

Published on: June 23, 2008 | by Steven D. Silverman

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.

Proving the Value of Personal Property in Maryland

Published on: June 23, 2008 | by Kerri Smith

In personal injury cases, damage to personal property may be a component of an injured victim’s overall damages. How do you prove this component of your case? In Maryland, it is well-established that an owner of personal property may express an opinion as to the value of that property without qualification as an expert. See Maryland Casualty Co. v. Therm-O-Disc, Inc. 137 F.3d 780,786 (1998). The experienced personal injury trial lawyer should be well-armed with this authority whenever proving his or her client’s total economic damages in a personal injury case. The experienced trial lawyer will not let defense counsel convince the court that an expert is needed to opine as to the value of personal property. Maryland law contains no such requirement.