Maryland Car Accident Attorney Blog

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.

Court Determines Insurance Adjuster May Have Obtained Favorable Settlement Through Undue Influence

March 19, 2018 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Recently, an appellate court issued an opinion in a car accident case involving a plaintiff who signed a waiver of liability in favor of the defendant insurance company. The case required the court to determine if the waiver was valid. Finding that there was some evidence suggesting that the plaintiff was subject to undue influence when asked to sign the release, the court permitted the plaintiff’s case to proceed toward trial for a jury to make the final determination.

The case presents an important issue for Maryland car accident victims who may have signed a release of liability that grossly favors the other side.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff was involved in a car accident with another driver. The facts suggested that the other driver was at fault. The at-fault driver’s insurance company sent out an insurance adjuster to discuss the possibility of settling the plaintiff’s claim.

Court Denies Plaintiff’s Motion for New Trial, Finding the Evidence Supported the Jury’s Verdict

March 11, 2018 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

After a jury returns a verdict in a Maryland car accident case, the losing party has the opportunity to file a number of post-trial motions. The most common post-trial motion is a motion for a new trial based on some perceived error that occurred during the proceeding. Generally speaking, a judge will not disturb a jury’s verdict absent extraordinary circumstances, but there are occasions on which a judge can override a jury’s findings and order a new trial.

A recent case illustrates a plaintiff’s unsuccessful attempt to obtain a new trial. The plaintiff was unsuccessful because the evidence at trial, which was contradictory, supported a finding in either party’s favor. That being the case, the court found that the jury was reasonable when it came to its ultimate conclusion.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff was involved in a car accident with the defendant. Believing the defendant to be at fault, the plaintiff filed a personal injury lawsuit against the defendant, seeking compensation for the injuries she sustained in 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.

Plaintiff’s Own Testimony Used Against Her in Recent Car Accident Case

February 23, 2018 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

In the moments after a Maryland car accident, emotions are running high, and adrenaline is pumping. For these reasons, a motorist’s statements in the immediate aftermath of an accident may not be accurate or complete. However, as a recent case illustrates, statements made at any time after an accident may be used against the person making them, even if they later disavow the statement.

The Facts of the Case

In 2015, the plaintiff was involved in a car accident with a driver who was not insured. The plaintiff filed a personal injury lawsuit against the other driver, but since he did not have insurance, the plaintiff also named her father’s insurance company as a party to the lawsuit, relying on the policy’s uninsured motorist protection.

The insurance company sent a list of questions to the plaintiff, called an interrogatory. One of the questions contained in the interrogatory asked who lived with the plaintiff. The plaintiff responded that she lived with her three children. Later, in a deposition, the plaintiff stated that she lived across the street from her father.

Maryland Court Discusses Admissibility of Medical Records in Recent Car Accident Case

February 16, 2018 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Earlier this month, an appellate court issued a written opinion in a Maryland car accident case requiring the court to discuss and interpret Maryland Rule of Evidence 5-703, dealing with the admissibility of expert witness testimony. Specifically, the court had to determine whether the plaintiff’s medical records that were relied upon by a defense expert witness could be provided to the jury during deliberations. Ultimately, the court concluded that under the language of Rule 5-703, admissibility was permitted.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff was involved in a car accident while on the way to a wedding. After the accident, the plaintiff attended the wedding, and she went to the hospital the following morning. The plaintiff saw a number of doctors and eventually was diagnosed with several serious medical conditions. However, in the plaintiff’s discussion with the doctors, the plaintiff was not consistent in reporting where she was experiencing pain.

The plaintiff later filed a personal injury case against the driver who caused the accident. At trial, both the plaintiff and the defendant presented expert witnesses on the issue of whether the collision was what caused the plaintiff’s injuries. After the defense expert witness testified that the accident was not the cause of the plaintiff’s injuries, the defendant moved to introduce four of the plaintiff’s medical records to the jury. These medical records, the defendant believed, contradicted some of the plaintiff’s claims.

Can Uber or Lyft Be Liable for a Maryland Accident Caused by a Driver?

February 9, 2018 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Taxis are a thing of the past. Or at least that is what companies like Uber and Lyft hope will soon be the case. Uber and Lyft are companies that have created similar applications that allow passengers to get picked up and delivered to their destination by non-employee, independent contractors who are then paid a percentage of the fare by the company. From a passenger’s perspective, the apps operate much like a traditional taxi service in that passengers will hail a ride through the app, a driver arrives to pick the passenger up, and then the driver delivers the passenger to their destination.

There are no special qualifications that are required to drive for these companies, other than being over 21 years of age, maintaining car insurance on the vehicle, and having a clean driving record. With the popularity of Uber, Lyft, and other rideshare apps increasing over the past few years, as well as the potential for inexperienced motorists acting as taxi drivers, it is natural that we are seeing an increase in Maryland car accidents involving Uber and Lyft drivers.

Rideshare companies are known for having a hefty insurance policy that protects passengers and drivers in the event of an accident. However, not all accidents involving an Uber or Lyft driver will be covered. It is easiest to understand the available coverage by breaking down each stage in a ride.

Court Finds Transportation Department Not Liable for Misplaced Construction Barrel

February 2, 2018 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Earlier this month, a state appellate court issued a written opinion in a negligence case involving the alleged misplacement of a construction barrel by the state’s department of transportation. The case contains a discussion about the duties of a government to keep public roads safe, which is important for Maryland car accident victims who have been injured due to the poor condition of a public road.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff was driving along an Idaho highway towing a trailer. The plaintiff entered a construction zone, and there were orange barrels lined up along both sides of the only lane of travel that was open to motorists. As the plaintiff continued down the highway, she noticed a barrel was placed directly in the lane of travel. Unable to avoid the barrel, the plaintiff struck the barrel with the awning of her trailer.

Thankfully, the plaintiff was not injured and only sustained somewhat minor property damage to her trailer. However, the plaintiff filed a personal injury lawsuit against the state’s department of transportation, claiming that it was negligent in the placement of the barrel and should be responsible for the repair costs to the trailer.

The Importance of Notifying an Insurance Company of an Accident

January 23, 2018 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

An insurance company can be a Maryland car accident victim’s best friend or worst enemy. While the stated purpose of insurance is to compensate a claimant for losses that occur due to a covered incident, in practice, insurance companies view most claims with an eye toward denial. This is because insurance companies are for-profit companies that rely on taking in more money in premiums than they pay out in claims.

That being the case, insurance contracts are often written in a way that gives the insurance company many “loopholes” to get out of satisfying even a meritorious claim. For example, almost all insurance policies have strict notice requirements that require an accident victim to provide the company with notice of the accident within a certain amount of time. The way that insurance contracts are written, if an accident victim fails to provide timely notice, the insurance company is not bound by the terms of the agreement and can deny an otherwise valid claim.

A recent case illustrates the frustration one motorist experienced when trying to recover compensation for his injuries after a car accident. While the case arose in Georgia, it illustrates an important point for Maryland car accident victims.

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.