Pedestrian Accidents

Appellate Court Discusses Employer Liability in Recent Pedestrian Accident

July 17, 2018 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Recently, a state appellate court issued a written opinion in a personal injury case discussing when an employer can be held liable when an employee causes a serious car accident on the way to or from work. Ultimately, the court concluded that an employer may be held liable in situations where the employer requires an employee to use the car on the day of the accident. The case is important for Maryland car accident victims because it illustrates the types of arguments employers may make when one of their employees causes an accident.

Vicarious Liability

As a general rule, an employer is responsible for the negligent acts of an employee, if the act is during and within the scope of employment. The idea is that the employee is carrying out the business of the employer, so it is only fair to allow anyone injured as a result of the employee’s negligence to seek compensation not just from the employee, but also the employer.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff was serious injured when he was struck by another car as a result of a collision caused by a county public defender (the “public defender”). While the county did not state that the public defender needed a have a car, practically speaking it was not possible for him to perform the functions of his job without a car. For example, the public defender had to attend various courthouses across the county, visit clients in prison, and investigate crime scenes.

Court Discusses the Concept of “Foreseeability” in Recent Car Accident Case

March 27, 2018 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Earlier this month, an appellate court issued a written opinion in a personal injury case discussing the concept of foreseeability. Essentially, in order to establish that a defendant owed a plaintiff a duty of care in a Maryland car accident case, the plaintiff must be able to establish that their injury was a foreseeable result of the defendant’s conduct.

In this case, the court concluded that the unusual and aggressive behavior of a third party was not foreseeable to the defendant, and thus it dismissed the plaintiff’s lawsuit.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff was visiting a food truck that leased space in a parking lot that was owned by the defendant. When the plaintiff pulled into the parking lot, he noticed that the lot was entirely full of cars parked in varying directions. He opted to back out of the lot and find parking elsewhere for fear of not being able to find a spot or not being able to exit once they were finished eating.

Appellate Court Reinstates Plaintiff’s Case After Finding Lower Court’s Evidentiary Ruling Was Improper

January 16, 2018 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Earlier this month, a state appellate court issued a written opinion in a car accident case requiring the court to determine if the lower court was proper in precluding the plaintiff from cross-examining an eyewitness to the accident. The case is important to Maryland car accident victims because the rule of evidence at issue in the case is very similar to Maryland Rule of Evidence 5-613.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff was injured when she was struck by the defendant’s car while crossing the street at an unmarked crosswalk. There was only one witness to the accident. However, the defendant hired an expert witness and also planned on calling the responding police officers to testify at trial.

Before trial, the plaintiff filed a motion to prevent the police officers from discussing what the eyewitness told them at the scene, claiming that such testimony would be inadmissible hearsay. The court agreed and limited the officers’ testimony only to what they personally observed.

Appellate Court Opinion Discusses Causation as It Relates to Car Accidents

August 9, 2017 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Causation is a necessary element of any Maryland personal injury lawsuit. Briefly, the causation requirement is met if the plaintiff can establish that the defendant’s actions brought about the plaintiff’s harm. While that may sound like a fairly straightforward determination, the reality is that much litigation is focused around the causation element. A recent case details how one state’s supreme court conducted a causation analysis. The case is important to Maryland car accident victims because, while the specific law applied in Maryland courts is slightly different, similar principles do apply.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiffs were the parents of a student who was injured while running with his school’s cross-country team. The injury occurred when the plaintiffs’ son was instructed to cross the street against a red light by the track coach, who was running with the team. As the boy entered the intersection, he was struck by a passing vehicle, resulting in serious injuries.

The boy’s parents filed a personal injury lawsuit against the coach, arguing that he was responsible for their son’s injury. The parents also named the driver of the car that struck their son, although that case was not discussed in the opinion.

Two-Car Accident Results in Pedestrian Getting Struck, Court Finds Both Drivers Potentially Liable

March 21, 2017 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Earlier this month, an appellate court in Rhode Island issued a written opinion in a car accident case involving a two-car collision that resulted in a nearby crossing guard being struck and seriously injured by one of the vehicles. The court had to decide whether both parties to the car accident could potentially be held liable for the plaintiff’s injuries. Ultimately, the court held that a jury should be able to determine and apportion fault between the motorists, and allowed the case to proceed toward trial against both parties.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff was a crossing guard stationed on the corner near the school. A few minutes before her shift was scheduled to end, she looked up and saw a black car speeding down the road, passing cars in the opposing lane of traffic. As the car approached the intersection where the plaintiff was stationed, it ran a red light. The car entered the intersection at the same time as a pick-up truck also entered the intersection with a green light on its side. The vehicles collided, and the force of the collision sent the pick-up truck careening into the plaintiff. She was thrown against a nearby wall and suffered serious injuries as a result.

The plaintiff filed a personal injury lawsuit against both drivers. During summary judgment proceedings, the pick-up truck driver asked the court to dismiss the case against him, because it was uncontested that he’d entered the intersection with a green light. The trial judge agreed that the pick-up truck driver was not negligent because he had a green light, and granted summary judgment in his favor. The plaintiff appealed.

Court Finds Plaintiff’s Post-Accident Admission that She Was Intoxicated Was Binding, Preventing Plaintiff from Seeking Damages

March 14, 2017 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Earlier this month, an appellate court in Washington State issued a written opinion in a car accident case brought by a woman who was injured when she was struck by a Highway Patrolman’s vehicle. Immediately after the accident, the plaintiff admitted that she was under the influence of alcohol. The court determined that her unambiguous admission prevented her from claiming otherwise from then on in any trial proceedings. Thus, under state law, the case was dismissed.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff was drinking at a party with some friends when she got into a fight with one of the other people at the party. She left the party, and because she had been drinking, she called her brother to pick her up. After waiting for a while and not seeing her brother, the plaintiff saw a car approaching and thought it was him. She ran out in front of the car, which was actually a Highway Patrol vehicle. The Highway Patrol officer did not see the plaintiff in time to stop the vehicle, and struck her. After the accident, the plaintiff admitted to investigators that she had been drinking.

The plaintiff filed a personal injury lawsuit against both the State as well as against the Highway Patrol. In its defense, the defendants argued that the plaintiff’s admission that she was intoxicated prevented her from recovering for her injuries under state law. The law at issue prevents recovery when a plaintiff is intoxicated, the intoxication was the cause of the accident, and the plaintiff was more than 50% at fault.

Court Discusses the Superior/Equal Knowledge Doctrine in Recent Personal Injury Case

February 2, 2017 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Earlier this month, a Georgia appellate court issued a written opinion in a premises liability case that required the court to discuss what it termed the “superior/equal knowledge doctrine.” The court held that while a plaintiff must generally prove that the defendant had superior knowledge of the hazardous condition causing the plaintiff’s injuries, that was not the case, given the specific circumstances of the plaintiff’s injuries.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff was a delivery driver for a fuel company. One of his customers was the defendant gas station. This particular gas station had a strict rule that required delivery drivers to manually measure the fuel level both prior to filling the tanks as well as afterwards. In order to manually measure the tank, the driver must do so in the parking lot of the gas station. The plaintiff told the gas station manager several times that measuring the tanks in this manner was dangerous, but the manager insisted that it be done. In fact, several of the plaintiff’s colleagues had been fired on the spot for failing to comply with the manager’s directives.

On the day in question, the plaintiff was run over by a third-party customer when he was measuring the tank after he had filled it. The plaintiff then filed a premises liability lawsuit against the gas station, arguing that it should be responsible for his injuries because it negligently required that he follow dangerous protocols. In response, the gas station argued that the plaintiff knew the risks involved but continued to comply with the measuring requirements.

Court Discusses Burden-Shifting Framework for Determining When Late-Filed Claims Against Public Entities Should Be Permitted

January 10, 2017 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

All personal injury cases must be filed within a certain amount of time. However, plaintiffs filing certain cases against a public or government entity must also provide notice to the defendant within a much shorter amount of time in order to preserve their right to compensation. In a recent case in front of a state appellate court, the burden-shifting framework of establishing “substantial prejudice” is discussed in the context of whether a plaintiff should be permitted to proceed with a case against a public defendant that was not provided timely notice of the claim.

Newcomb v. Middle Country School District

Newcomb, a 16-year-old boy, was struck by a hit-and-run motorist as he was attempting to cross the street near a school. The driver was later arrested. Immediately after the accident, Newcomb’s family notified the school. The family also sent an investigator to the scene of the accident to take pictures. A month later, Newcomb asked the police department for the file it had created throughout the investigation of the accident. However, since the case was still open, Newcomb was unable to obtain the file until five months had passed.

How Design Immunity May Prevent an Accident Victim’s Lawsuit Against a Government Entity

December 23, 2016 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

There are almost an infinite number of causes of traffic accidents. While many accidents are caused by the negligence of one or more motorists, sometimes the way a road or intersection is designed is so dangerous that the government can be at fault for the dangerous design. However, in some cases, government entities are entitled to immunity from these lawsuits if the government followed certain procedures in designing and building the roadway. If a government is entitled to design immunity, a plaintiff’s lawsuit will be dismissed. A recent case illustrates how design immunity may be applied by a court.

Gonzales v. City of Atwater: The Facts

In 2010, Gonzales was struck and killed by a vehicle in an Atwater intersection as he was crossing the road. Gonzales’ family filed a personal injury lawsuit against both the City of Atwater as well as against the driver of the vehicle that struck Gonzales.

Throughout the trial, the city argued that it should be dismissed from the lawsuit because it was entitled to design immunity. Specifically, the city argued that it had relied on a study that was commissioned back in 2001 on how to make the intersection safer. The study came back with several suggestions, which the city implemented. Notwithstanding the city’s arguments, the trial court denied the city’s motions seeking dismissal. At the conclusion of the trial, the jury determined that the other driver was not at fault for the accident and that the City of Atwater was liable. The plaintiffs were awarded $3.2 million.

Pedestrian Accidents in the Maryland and Washington, D.C. Areas

September 27, 2016 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Accidents between motor vehicles and pedestrians are common in the Maryland and Washington, D.C. areas. In fact, in Maryland alone, there are over 100 fatal pedestrian accidents each year. Of course, this does not take into account the hundreds of other pedestrian accidents that result in serious injuries. In part, the high frequency of pedestrian accidents in the area is due to the many mixed-use roads in busy urban and suburban areas across the region.

Most pedestrian accidents are preventable, and most of the time, the responsibility to prevent the accident falls on the driver of the vehicle. This is because motorists all assume a duty to those around them to operate their vehicle in a safe manner. Of course, this duty requires that motorists keep an eye out for pedestrians and obey all traffic laws in place to protect them. When a motorist violates this duty, the pedestrian may be able to seek monetary compensation from the motorist thought a Maryland or Washington, D.C. personal injury case.

In both Maryland and D.C., however, there are some strict rules in place regarding which accident victims are entitled to recovery. For example, if an accident victim is determined to have been at fault in the accident, they will be prevented from recovery. This stands true even if the pedestrian is determined to be just 5% at fault. Any fault assigned to the pedestrian could destroy their case.