Maryland Car Accident Attorney Blog

Can the Maryland Government Be Liable for a Roadside Hazard?

January 6, 2020 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Maryland property owners generally maintain the responsibility to keep their property safe for people whom they invite onto their property. If an individual suffers injuries on an owner’s property, the property owner or occupier may be liable for the damages that the visitor sustained. Under Maryland personal injury law, accident victims who want to hold a property owner responsible for their injuries must be able to establish four main factors:

The property owner had a duty to keep their property safe from dangers;
The owner failed to abide by that duty;
The dangerous condition caused the victim’s injuries; and
The victim’s injuries resulted in damages.

In some cases, this also applies to roadside hazards. However, challenges may arise when the negligent party is a governmental entity, such as a city, county, state, or federal agency. Historically, under the theory of sovereign immunity, Maryland government agencies cannot face liability without their consent. However, to address this fundamental unfairness, Maryland lawmakers established the Maryland Tort Claims Act, which waives governmental immunity in specific instances.

To determine whether a Maryland governmental agency or official can face liability, the courts will analyze whether the party was engaging in discretionary or ministerial duties. Discretionary duties occur when a governmental agent or employee chooses between different options. Accident victims who suffer damages because of a governmental agency’s discretionary duty cannot hold the government liable. On the other hand, ministerial duties are those that do not require any judgment calls or independent decision-making. Accident victims can recover damages that they sustained because of a negligent government official’s ministerial decision-making.

Maryland Texting While Driving Citations Remain Rare, Despite High Number of Fatalities

December 27, 2019 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Texting while driving remains a serious issue throughout the country. Despite the seriousness of the issue, prosecutions of drivers remain rare, and proving that a driver was using their phone can be tricky in Maryland car accident cases. Without proof that a driver sent a message just before a crash, it can be hard to show that a driver was using their phone, including reading a text message.

According to a recent news report, a woman was recently convicted of vehicular homicide in a rare texting while driving prosecution. In that case, a woman was out for a walk during a break from her job when she was hit by a car. A driver believed to have been texting had rear-ended another car, which crashed into the pedestrian. The crash occurred at around 8:20 a.m. on a weekday in September. The driver was charged with vehicular homicide because she was texting while driving, and a jury recently convicted the driver after a trial. The case was believed to be the first in which a jury considered whether texting while driving could be considered akin to drunk driving.

The driver’s trial centered on whether the driver had been texting while driving. The driver had received a text asking her about dinner plans. The prosecution argued that she had read the text and had typed the letters “m” and “e” as part of her response. The driver claimed that she was not texting at the time of the crash. She said that she had typed those letters but did not remember when and was planning to call the person instead. The driver testified that she had looked down to turn on a window defogger and that when she looked up, the other car was “right in front” of her.

Wrong-Way Car Accidents in Maryland

December 21, 2019 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Wrong-way car accidents are often more devastating than most types of Maryland car accidents. According to the National Transportation Safety Board, wrong-way collisions are one of the most serious types of accidents that occur on highways. A recent study showed that such collisions are much more likely to result in fatal or serious injuries than other kinds of highway collisions. One study looking at wrong-way collisions on controlled-access highways found that the fatality rate was 27 times that of other kinds of accidents.

A study by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) found that more than half of wrong-way drivers are impaired by alcohol. It also found that many wrong-way controlled-access cases begin when a driver enters an exit ramp. The NTSB study also found that nearly 80 percent of fatal wrong-way crashes occurred at night, between the hours of 6:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m.

While each case is different, there are several potential defendants in a wrong-way car accident case. Of course, the wrong-way driver is often to blame, due to intoxication or another negligent act. The driver’s employer may be liable if the driver is driving for work purposes. Finally, a municipality can be liable if the road’s design or signs contributed to the crash in some way. Defendants and their insurance companies generally deny liability and try to point the finger at other parties. Building a strong case against all potential parties sets a plaintiff up for the best possible scenario.

The Importance of Foreseeability in Maryland Car Accident Cases

December 16, 2019 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Any Maryland negligence claim requires proving that the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty, that the defendant breached that duty, that the plaintiff suffered an injury or loss, and that the damages proximately resulted from the defendant’s breach of the duty. The legal relationship between the breach of duty and the injury is known as proximate cause. Under Maryland law, to establish proximate cause, the plaintiff must show that the negligence was both the cause in fact of the injury and a legally cognizable cause.

Cause in fact refers only to whether a defendant’s actions actually caused an injury. Whether there is a legally cognizable cause considers whether the injury was a foreseeable result of the defendant’s negligent actions. The issue becomes whether the injury to the plaintiff was within the general field of danger that the defendant should have expected or anticipated. Legal cause often requires a consideration of policy considerations and whether a defendant should be held liable under the circumstances. Generally, proximate cause must be decided by a jury (or a judge if the judge is the trier of fact), unless there is only one possible inference that can be drawn based on the facts of the case, or unless “reasoning minds cannot differ.”

Foreseeability is also a consideration in determining whether a duty exists in personal injury cases. In a 1985 case that is still cited today, one Maryland judge explained that “courts have given further effect to the social policy of limitation of liability for remote consequences by narrowing the concept of duty to embrace only those persons or classes of persons to whom harm of some type might reasonably have been foreseen as a result of the particular tortious conduct.”

Presumptions of Negligence in Maryland Rear-End Collisions

December 6, 2019 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

In some cases, a presumption of negligence can work in a party’s favor. However, presumptions can also work against a party. For example, in rear-end collisions, in many states, there is a presumption that the rear driver was negligent. Maryland courts have found that in Maryland rear-end collision cases, if a vehicle is lawfully stopped while waiting for traffic to clear and that vehicle is rear-ended by another car, the operator of the car that rear-ended the stopped vehicle is presumed to have been negligent. However, the presumption is rebuttable, and the burden of persuasion remains with the plaintiff. Thus, a plaintiff still has the ultimate responsibility to prove that the defendant was negligent, which includes establishing all the elements of negligence.

In addition, Maryland courts have found that in the case of a rear-end collision that occurs after the first vehicle stops, there is no presumption that the rear driver was negligent, unless the rear driver had the opportunity to stop after the need to stop became apparent. Under Maryland Code section 21–310(a), a driver cannot follow another vehicle more closely than is reasonable and prudent, considering traffic, the speed of the other car, and the conditions on the road.

Court Directs Verdict Against Rear-End Driver Despite Jury’s Verdict

Admitting Business Records into Evidence in Maryland Injury Cases

November 26, 2019 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Before a document can be admitted in evidence in a Maryland injury case, the court must determine if the document is genuine and true. Courts refer to this as authentication. Maryland Rule 5-901 provides that authentication is satisfied “by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims.” For example, a witness can testify that another person signed a contract in order to prove the authenticity of a signature on a document. A witness might also be able to testify as to the authenticity of a signature through testimony that establishes that the witness is familiar with the person’s signature.

Even if a document is properly authenticated, documents must still be admissible under hearsay rules. Maryland Rule 5-803(b)(6) concerns the admission of business records under Maryland law. Under the rule, a business record can be admitted if it is proven the record was made “at or near the time of the act, event, or condition, or the rendition of the diagnosis,” was made by a person with knowledge or from information given by a person with knowledge, that the business regularly made and maintained such a record, and that the record was made and maintained in the course of the regular course of business. This rule applies to businesses and associations, whether or not they are for-profit or not-for-profit. A recent case considered whether a medical record was properly admitted in a personal injury case.

In that case, the plaintiff was a passenger in a car when the car was involved in an accident with another vehicle. The plaintiff sued the drivers of both cars for injuries she claimed were caused by the crash. The case went to trial, and the jury found in the plaintiff’s favor on liability but awarded her no damages, so the plaintiff appealed. She claimed that her prior medical records should not have been admitted into evidence because they were not authenticated.

Personal Injury Claims and Insurance Disputes Following Maryland Car Accidents

November 18, 2019 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

The Maryland Motor Vehicle Administration (MVA) reports that thousands of people are hurt or killed in Maryland car accidents every year. Crash report statistics have shown there has been a rise in Maryland car accidents every year since 2012. These incidents range from minor to severe, and Maryland car accident victims often suffer significant financial repercussions as a result of these accidents. Many accident victims do not realize that their insurance companies may not cover the extent of damages that they sustained. In these situations, injury victims may need to file a dispute with their insurance company to recover fully for their losses. In some cases, a Maryland personal injury lawsuit against the at-fault party may be necessary.

Injury victims are often surprised to discover that their insurance company is taking an adversarial role when the policyholder attempts to collect on a claim. Many times, insurance companies will go to great lengths to dispute a claim, deny coverage, and escape making a payment.

For example, recently, a state appellate court issued a ruling in a lawsuit stemming from a claim dispute between a policyholder and her insurance company. In that case, a woman suffered injuries while she was exercising at a mobile gym. The woman filed and settled a negligence lawsuit against the gym’s owner and the personal trainer. The gym was run out of the back of a pickup truck, so she filed a car insurance claim with her provider to recover her remaining damages. Her insurance company disputed coverage, arguing that her uninsured/underinsured coverage did not extend to motor vehicles such as a mobile gym. The insurance company cited specific provisions in her policy that limited the insurance company’s obligation to pay a claim. Ultimately, the appellate court ruled in the insurance company’s favor finding that the coverage did not extend to motor vehicles that are “located for use as a premises,” such as a mobile gym.

Are Family Members Covered Under a Maryland Insurance Policy?

November 12, 2019 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Those who have been involved in a serious Maryland car accident may have sustained injury, property damage, and missed time away from work. If the other driver who caused the accident has insurance, the accident victim can file a claim under that driver’s policy. However, if the at-fault driver either does not have insurance, or their insurance coverage is insufficient to cover the expenses incurred by the accident victim, the accident victim may have to look elsewhere to obtain full compensation.

Most commonly, in these situations, an injured motorist will look to their own insurance policy. Under Maryland law, all insurance policies must by default contain coverage for accidents involving underinsured or uninsured drivers. It is only if the insurance company obtains a written request by the insured to waive underinsured/uninsured motorist (UIM) protection that an insurance company can issue a policy without this coverage. Needless to say, UIM coverage can be critical to an accident victim obtaining a full and fair settlement. Unfortunately, issues frequently arise when dealing with UIM policies. One issue that comes up often in Maryland UIM insurance claims is whether the person making the claim was covered under the policy.

Maryland insurance policies are contracts, and are enforced through state contract law. In exchange for a monthly premium payable by the insured, an insurance company agrees to provide certain coverage, as outlined in the policy. Among other things, all insurance policies must contain the coverage amounts and state who the coverage applies to. Often, policies will contain “exclusions” which outline specific circumstances in which coverage will not apply.

Ambiguous Terms in Maryland Insurance Policies May Reduce Coverage or Recovery

November 5, 2019 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

When accidents happen and people are injured, many individuals rely on their insurance policies to help them cover the costs. For instance, homeowner’s insurance policies can protect individuals if something that they own hurts someone else or damages their property. Maryland law allows the injured party to sue the at-fault party in court to recover monetary compensation, and insurance can help the at-fault party cover all or part of the award. However, some insurance companies may try to escape liability for certain types of accidents, relying on vague or ambiguous language in the policy’s contract.

Take a recent state appellate case, for example. According to the court’s written opinion, the plaintiff brought suit when she was injured by the defendant’s Ford truck. The truck had been parked on an incline on the driveway when the plaintiff, examining it, pulled the emergency brake. The truck subsequently took off and went down the driveway, rolling over the plaintiff’s ankles and causing her multiple injuries, including several fractures and a knee effusion. The plaintiff then filed suit against the defendant, alleging negligence.

Typically, in situations like this, a defendant with homeowner’s insurance would receive assistance from their insurance company. However, the defendant’s insurer filed a complaint for a declaratory judgment to determine whether or not it had to cover the incident. The insurance company argued that they did not provide coverage for claims arising out of the “use” of a motor vehicle, and thus were not obliged to cover the defendant here. Ultimately, the question came down to what the ambiguous term “use of a motor vehicle” meant, since there was no further definition in the policy contract.

How Does Insurance Stacking Impact a Maryland Car Accident Victim’s Recovery?

October 28, 2019 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Understanding insurance coverage is a crucial part of any Maryland car accident case. After an accident, many unfamiliar terms may come up, potentially confusing an accident victim. Insurance stacking refers to a coverage option that some states allow policyholders to obtain to protect themselves if they are in a car accident with an under or uninsured motorist (UIM). Stacking enables policyholders to make claims under two policies or make two claims from different vehicles under the same policy. To obtain stacked insurance coverage, the policyholder must live in a state that allows this type of coverage.

State laws vary on whether policyholders are permitted to stack insurance policies. For example, Maryland does not permit policyholders to stack with multiple policies or within one policy if the language is clear and unambiguous. Whereas, Virginia allows drivers to stack policies unless there is clear and unambiguous language prohibiting stacking. Additionally, policyholders who wish to get this coverage must have UIM coverage on two cars under one policy or two separate policies on two vehicles. This coverage allows motorists to increase their bodily injury coverage if they are involved in an accident with a UIM.

States that allow stacking remove some unfair and burdensome barriers that motorists face when they are involved with a negligent uninsured driver. For example, a state appellate court recently issued an opinion in a case stemming from a car accident involving an underinsured driver. According to the court’s opinion, the plaintiff purchased a car insurance policy for two of her vehicles. She initially waived her right to stack her UIM coverage but then increased her coverage and was not presented with the same waiver at that time. Several years later, she was involved in an accident with an underinsured driver, and the insurance company attempted to limit her coverage and claimed that she waived stacking when she increased her coverage. The appellate court found that it was the insurance company’s responsibility to provide her with a new waiver; otherwise, it could not be said that the plaintiff waived her right to the coverage.