Negligent Driving

Waldorf, MD Crash With Multiple Extrications Injures Four Drivers and Passengers

January 30, 2026 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

When a crash is severe enough that firefighters have to cut people out of vehicles, everything gets heavy at once. A normal night turns into ambulance rides, worried calls, missed work, and paperwork that shows up before you even feel steady again. Reports out of Waldorf describe an overnight collision that left multiple people trapped and injured, with four taken to hospitals. Families in this spot usually want the same first answer: how fault gets sorted out and how insurance is supposed to cover the damage.

Maryland also adds a tough wrinkle. Insurance companies often look for any argument that the injured person shares blame, and that can block compensation. Staying calm and keeping good records early can make a real difference later, especially when pain and treatment do not follow a neat timeline.

What The Early Reports Say Happened In Waldorf

Maryland Car Crash Claims After Smith v. Sheehan And Pre-Impact Fright Damages

November 22, 2025 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Maryland’s appellate court recently clarified that in some car accident cases, you can recover for the fear you feel in the seconds before a second collision, not just for the physical impact itself. In Smith v. Sheehan, the court confirmed that “pre-impact fright” is a valid category of non-economic damages when supported by evidence, including objective signs of emotional distress. This ruling can increase the compensation available in serious Maryland car crash claims, especially multi-impact collisions.

If you lived through a terrifying sequence where your vehicle spun, slid, or headed toward another impact, that emotional experience may be compensable in addition to your physical injuries. Understanding how the court views pre-impact fright helps you and your lawyer build a more substantial claim from the start.

How Smith v. Sheehan Changed The Conversation About Fear During A Crash

In Smith v. Sheehan, a driver in Baltimore County felt a violent rear-end impact that sent her car spinning into a guardrail. She testified that after the first hit, she screamed, prayed, and believed she might die before the second impact. The trial judge refused to give a jury instruction on pre-impact fright, reasoning that the doctrine only applied before the first impact, which she did not see coming. The jury awarded modest non-economic damages, and the plaintiff appealed.

Car Plunges into a Maryland House and Lands Upside-Down

February 21, 2023 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

There are times when the details of a car crash sound like the details are coming from a script from a movie. Cars crashing into homes, cars plunging into the water, cars launching and spinning mid-air, etc. However, sometimes these accidents occur in real life and are dangerous for everyone involved.

According to a recent report, a driver survived a shocking car crash in Chillum, Maryland. An SUV was launched, spinning into the air and landed upside-down in the wall of a house. The vehicle’s back wheels were almost touching the partially-collapsed ceiling of the home. As a result, part of the wall of the home collapsed, and a part of the staircase was visible from the outside. After the crash, the driver of the vehicle was able to exit the car himself. According to initial reports, the driver was traveling up a hill, ended up spinning in the air, and landing on the inside of the house. Luckily, neither the driver nor anyone in the home was injured.

[sc_fs_faq html=”true” headline=”h3″ img=”” question=” What Are Single-Vehicle Accidents?

Understanding Maryland Shared Fault Rules

February 22, 2022 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

When a Maryland car accident occurs, it’s not always clear who was at fault. Sometimes, in more simple collisions, it’s obvious who the at-fault party is, and they may be 100 percent at fault. In many accidents, however, this is not always the case. Determining who is truly at fault in a car accident is crucial because it can affect how much compensation you receive if you decide to file a claim either through insurance or in a personal injury lawsuit.

According to a recent local news report, one driver has died, and another has been hospitalized following a collision at an intersection in Prince George’s County. Police said the accident occurred around 12:15pm when both drivers were going eastbound. One driver rear-ended the other while going through the intersection. The driver of the struck vehicle was transported to a local hospital, where he was pronounced dead. The other driver was reportedly being treated for serious injuries at the hospital. Local authorities are still working to determine the circumstances that led up to the crash, and the accident remains under investigation.

Following a major car accident, it is not unheard of to file an insurance claim or personal injury lawsuit against who you perceive to be the at-fault party in the collision, only to hear that they are now claiming that you share some fault for what took place. In some states, the amount of fault that you are responsible for may impact your claim more than others. Unfortunately, in Maryland, it can often be a crucial factor in your case.

Using Police Reports as Evidence in a Maryland Car Accident Case

January 25, 2022 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Establishing fault after a Maryland car accident is critical to recovering damages for an injury victim’s losses. Under Maryland’s strict negligence laws, accident victims face the burden of establishing the other party’s fault, but they must also refute any claims of contributory negligence. Meeting this high threshold requires a significant amount of evidence in conjunction with a compelling argument.

While Maryland law does not require accident victims to report every accident to the police, police reports are a crucial piece of evidence. Moreover, certain circumstances mandate a police report. These situations involve incidents where:

A driver or passenger is hurt;

How a Third Party’s Actions Affect Causation in a Negligence Claim

June 9, 2021 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

One of the elements that individuals filing a Maryland negligence claim have to prove is causation. But even if a court finds a defendant’s acts or omissions were the cause-in-fact of the plaintiff’s injuries, the court will also consider whether the defendant’s negligent actions are a legally cognizable cause—that is, whether the defendant should be held liable under the circumstances. This consideration generally centers on whether the plaintiff’s injuries were within the harm that the defendant should have anticipated or expected due to the defendant’s negligent actions. Thus, a defendant may not be liable if the plaintiff’s injuries resulted only because of very unusual and unexpected circumstances. In considering whether a defendant may be liable for a plaintiff’s injuries, the court will consider any intervening negligent acts or omissions in the foreseeability analysis. If an intervening negligent action or omission is found to be a superseding cause, the defendant will not be held liable. Intervening acts may include the criminal acts of a third party after the defendant’s original act of negligence, as in the following case.

In a recent decision issued by a state supreme court, the court considered a case in which an employee at an Avis rental company stole an SUV from the rental lot where he worked after it had closed for the day. He drove the SUV around for hours in hopes of selling the vehicle. Police officers saw him driving erratically and approached him, and the driver sped off in an attempt to escape. As he was trying to escape, the driver lost control of the vehicle and crashed into a wall where two people were sitting, severely injuring them. The two individuals sued the driver and others, including Avis rental car company, alleging negligence and vicarious liability. The juries in both cases found in favor of the plaintiffs.

However, the Supreme Court of George found that the plaintiffs could not recover because the driver’s intervening criminal conduct severed the chain of events for causation. The court held that the driver’s criminal acts were the intervening and independent wrongful act of a third person. The court decided that even if Avis was negligent in allowing the employee to gain access to a car and steal it after hours, the injuries to the plaintiffs were not a probable or natural consequence that could have been reasonably foreseen by the defendants. No evidence showed that the defendants could have reasonably foreseen that the driver would lead police on a high-speed chase and crash into the plaintiffs.

Do Maryland Motorists Have a Duty to Protect Others from Harm?

February 11, 2020 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Although people generally must act reasonably so as not to harm others, you may wonder if that extends to protecting others from harm. In the context of a Maryland negligence claim, a plaintiff bears the burden of proving the claim, which includes proving that the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty to protect the plaintiff from injury. Maryland courts have characterized the concept of duty as “an obligation, to which the law will give recognition and effect, to conform to a particular standard of conduct toward another.” Whether a duty exists depends on the specific facts and circumstances of the case.

Courts consider, among other things, whether the harm was foreseeable to the plaintiff, and the relationship between the defendant’s conduct and the injury. However, people do not have a general duty to the public at large to protect it against the actions of others. This was illustrated in a recent appellate case, in which the plaintiff claimed that a driver who had pulled over on the side of the road to help another stranded driver should have put out warnings to alert the plaintiff to the presence of the vehicles.

In that case, a pickup truck driver with an attached trailer experienced an electrical failure and pulled onto the shoulder of the highway. It was nighttime and the lights on the truck were not on due to the electrical failure. As another driver was passing by, he saw the truck and trailer and pulled over to help. A third vehicle was passing by, and veered off the highway and crashed into the trailer. The plaintiff was a passenger in the third vehicle. He sued the drivers, and a trial court dismissed the case.

The Importance of Conducting a Thorough Investigation Following a Maryland Car Accident

June 19, 2019 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

The goal of a Maryland car accident lawsuit is to award the victim of the accident financial compensation for the injuries they sustained in the accident. However, sometimes, determining who is the victim is not an easy task. While some accidents present straightforward situations pointing to one or more parties being at fault, other accidents are much more complicated. In either case, conducting an in-depth investigation is a crucial step in filing a personal injury lawsuit.

A few basic facts that should be a part of any Maryland car accident investigation include:

the location and time of the accident;

Court Affirms Defense Verdict in Car Accident Case, Despite Defendant’s Admission

March 2, 2018 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Earlier this month, an appellate court issued a written opinion in a personal injury case that raises an interesting issue that frequently comes up in Maryland car accident cases. The case required the court to determine if a jury’s verdict in favor of the defendant was proper, given that the defendant admitted to causing the accident and that the accident caused the plaintiff “some injury” but denied the nature and extent of the plaintiff’s claimed injuries.

Ultimately, the court concluded that the defendant’s “admission” was limited and that the issues of causation and damages were still at issue. Thus, the jury was acting within its discretion to find in favor of the defendant.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff was injured in a car accident when the defendant failed to yield while making a left turn. The plaintiff claimed that she suffered a serious injury as a result of the accident and filed a personal injury lawsuit against the defendant.

Court Denies Plaintiff’s Request for New Trial after Jury Issues Zero-Dollar Verdict

February 9, 2017 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Earlier this month, an appellate court in Virginia issued a written opinion in a car accident case that required the court to determine if the plaintiff should be entitled to a new trial after the jury found the defendant to be at fault for the car accident but awarded the plaintiff no damages. Ultimately, the court determined that the issue of damages depended in large part on the plaintiff’s own credibility and the medical evidence she presented. Since there was conflicting evidence presented about whether the plaintiff’s injuries were caused by the accident, the court held that the jury’s verdict should stand.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff was involved in a minor car accident when the defendant rear-ended her. Evidently, the plaintiff was stopped at a red light when the she heard “something boom.” She looked up, and her car was lurching into the intersection. The plaintiff was wearing a seatbelt, and no part of her body came into contact with the steering wheel or dash board. The plaintiff explained that she did not suffer and bruises, cuts, or swelling, but her body “tensed up” upon impact.

After the accident, the plaintiff requested to be taken to the hospital. She was seen by doctors and soon afterward released. The plaintiff testified that she saw her primary care doctor twice after the accident but provided no evidence of the visits. She did, however, provide evidence that she went to an orthopedic center, complaining of back and shoulder pain, 10 months after the accident. She subsequently had surgery on her shoulder.