Maryland Car Accident Attorney Blog

Court Finds Used-Car Dealer May Be Liable for Plaintiffs’ Carbon Monoxide Poisoning

June 4, 2018 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Earlier this month, a state appellate court issued a written opinion in a personal injury case involving a used car that was allegedly sold without a muffler, which, according to the plaintiffs, caused their carbon monoxide poisoning. Ultimately, the court concluded that the plaintiffs presented sufficient evidence to survive a summary judgment challenge by the defense, and thus, the lower court was wrong to have granted the motion.

This case presents an important issue for those who have been injured in a Maryland car accident and believe the accident was caused in part by a missing or defective vehicle component.

The Facts of the Case

A couple bought a used car from the defendant dealership. The car, which had been received by the defendant dealership as a trade-in, had 180,000 miles on it and had a number of mechanical problems. However, the salesperson for the defendant did not note that the car was missing a muffler.

Maryland Multi-Vehicle Car Accident Kills One, Injures Several Others

May 23, 2018 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Earlier this month, a Maryland car accident involving three vehicles claimed the life of one woman and injured several others. According to a local news report, the accident occurred in the evening hours on Route 238 and Asbury Road, in Denton.

Evidently, a Jeep Grand Cherokee was traveling eastbound when it inexplicably crossed over the center line and into oncoming traffic. As the Jeep entered oncoming traffic, it struck a Toyota head-on. The Jeep then rolled over and struck a nearby GMC truck, which was also traveling westbound.

Several injuries were reported among the passengers in the Jeep. The driver and one of the passengers in the Toyota were taken to the hospital as well. However, one of the passengers in the Toyota sustained fatal injuries.

Plaintiff’s Case Dismissed Based on Misleading Testimony Regarding Previous Injuries

May 16, 2018 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Recently, a state appellate court issued a written opinion in a personal injury case illustrating why it is so important for Maryland car accident victims to always remain on the right side of the line between being a zealous advocate and misleading the court. The case presented the court with the opportunity to discuss when a trial court is proper in dismissing a plaintiff’s case for providing misleading answers during the discovery process. Ultimately, the court found that the plaintiff’s answers were intended to “subvert the judicial” process, and therefore, it affirmed the dismissal of his case.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff was involved in a car accident with the defendant. As a result of the accident, the plaintiff sustained injuries to his back, neck, and shoulder. He subsequently filed a personal injury lawsuit against the defendant, seeking compensation for his injuries.

During pre-trial discovery, the plaintiff was presented with a list of questions to answer. Several of the questions asked whether the plaintiff had sustained injuries to his head, neck, or shoulder in the past. The plaintiff indicated that he had not. However, when the defendant asked the plaintiff to sign a medical release waiver, he refused.

Maryland Court Discusses the Interplay Between the Doctrines of Contributory Negligence and Imputed Negligence

May 9, 2018 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

In a recent appellate decision, a Maryland court held that a plaintiff-passenger who is injured in an accident cannot be precluded from recovering compensation for her injuries based on the fact that the driver she allowed to drive her car was negligent. In so holding, the court explained that it did not make sense to apply the doctrine of imputed negligence in a situation such as the one presented in the case.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff was injured in a car accident while a passenger in her own car. At the time of the accident, the plaintiff’s husband had parked the car near the entrance to a restaurant and had run in to pick up the couple’s take-out order. As the plaintiff was waiting in the car, the defendant backed up into the plaintiff’s vehicle as she was sitting in the passenger seat.

The plaintiff filed a personal injury lawsuit against the defendant, claiming that he was negligent in causing the accident. The defendant argued that the plaintiff should be precluded from recovering for her injuries because the negligence of her husband in improperly parking the car should be imputed to the plaintiff, as the owner of the vehicle.

Third-Party Liability in Maryland Drunk Driving Accidents

May 2, 2018 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Recently, a state appellate court issued a written opinion in a car accident case involving a plaintiff’s attempt to hold a bar responsible for the actions of a drunk driver under the theory that the bar was negligent in serving the at-fault driver to the point of intoxication. Ultimately, the court concluded that the plaintiff presented sufficient evidence of the establishment’s negligence for a jury to hear the case.

The case presents an interesting and developing issue under Maryland personal injury law in that, prior to 2016, third parties could not be held liable for serving alcohol to someone who later went on to cause a car accident. However, in a landmark case, the Court of Appeals of Maryland held that an accident victim can hold those responsible who served a minor alcohol if it contributed to a subsequent drunk driving accident.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff was rear-ended while driving with her two children. The driver who rear-ended her was determined to be under the influence of alcohol. That driver was cited for driving under the influence. As it turns out, the driver was returning from a work event at a local bar. After the accident, the woman reported feeling “buzzed” to police. The officer noted that the woman had bloodshot, watery eyes and slurred speech.

Court Rejects Plaintiff’s Uninsured Motorist Claim Based on Policy Language Exception

April 24, 2018 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

While car insurance is supposed to assist Maryland car accident victims in getting back on their feet after an accident, the unfortunate reality is that insurance companies are often looking for ways to get out of paying up. However, an insurance policy is a legally binding contract, whereby the insurance company agrees to pay for an accident victim’s costs related to covered claims.

Thus, when an insurance company refuses to pay out on a claim, or it only offers a low-ball settlement offer that does not cover an accident victim’s costs, the accident victim has the right to ask a court to compel the insurance company to pay. When courts are confronted with these cases, they usually start by reading the policy language and determining if the claim was covered.

A recent case illustrates the difficulties one accident victim had when filing an uninsured motorist claim based on injuries that occurred while operating a vehicle that was furnished for his everyday use.

Court Discusses Government Immunity as It Pertains to the Placement of Road Signs

April 17, 2018 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Recently, a state appellate court issued a written opinion in a personal injury case discussing whether a government entity may be held liable for its failure to place road signs in advance of a dead-end road. Ultimately, the court concluded that both the defendant township and the defendant county were immune from liability. This case presents important issues for Maryland car accident victims who believe that their accident was caused at least in part by the dangerous condition of a Maryland highway.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiffs were the surviving loved ones of two people who drowned after their vehicle ended up in a river at the end of a dead-end road. Evidently, there was a sign stating “Pavement Ends” approximately 600 feet before the river bank, but there was no sign indicating that motorists should slow down, nor were there protective barriers along the river’s bank.

The plaintiffs filed a wrongful death lawsuit against both the township and the county where the accident occurred, claiming that the government agency’s failure to place the sign and barriers was negligent and contributed to the deaths of their loved ones.

Court Finds Government Was Entitled to Immunity in Recent Case Over Negligently Designed Roadway

April 10, 2018 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Recently, a state appellate court issued a written opinion in a personal injury case that presented an interesting issue relevant to many Maryland car accident cases. The case required the court to determine if a government official’s design of a highway was discretionary despite the fact that the official did not contemplate the design advocated by the plaintiff. Ultimately, the court concluded that the official’s design was an exercise of discretion and affirmed the lower court’s finding that the government was entitled to immunity.

Government Immunity Generally

As a general rule, a government cannot be held liable for injuries caused by the negligence of its agencies or officials. However, under the Maryland Tort Claims Act, this immunity is waived in certain circumstances. One instance in which immunity is waived is when someone is injured due to the negligence of a government employee while carrying out a ministerial action, meaning an action that does not involve the exercise of discretion.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff was injured in a car accident when the vehicle in which he was riding as a passenger drifted off the road. The plaintiff filed a personal injury lawsuit against the government, arguing that the government was negligent for failing to place rumble strips along the shoulder of the road.

Court Discusses Plaintiff’s Duty to Preserve Evidence in Recent Car Accident Case

April 3, 2018 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Earlier this month, a state appellate court issued a written opinion in a personal injury case discussing when a plaintiff’s duty to preserve evidence arises. Ultimately, the court concluded that the plaintiff’s duty to preserve evidence arises at the same time a defendant’s duty does, which is when the plaintiff reasonably anticipates litigation will be forthcoming.

The case presents an important issue for Maryland car accident victims in that it illustrates a plaintiff’s duty to preserve evidence, which, if not followed, can result in serious sanctions up to and including dismissal.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff’s husband was seriously injured when a tire on the vehicle he was driving blew out, sending the vehicle spinning out of control on the highway. Eventually, the vehicle came to a rest upside down, and the plaintiff’s husband was left unconscious as a result of the injuries he sustained in the accident.

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.