Maryland Car Accident Attorney Blog

Jury Verdict in Favor of Defendant Affirmed in Recent Weather-Related Car Accident Case

August 23, 2017 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Last month, an appellate court in South Dakota issued a written opinion in a car accident case that will be of interest to Maryland car accident victims considering filing a personal injury case seeking compensation for their injuries. The case illustrates the procedural mechanism of summary judgment and when it is appropriate in personal injury cases. In this case, since the evidence presented gave rise to a material fact that needed to be resolved by the jury, the appellate court determined that the lower court was proper to deny the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.

Summary Judgment in Maryland Car Accident Cases

Summary judgment is a motion that can be filed by either a plaintiff or a defendant, seeking early judgment in that party’s favor based on the other parties’ inability to legally succeed. Commonly, summary judgment motions are filed by defendants in Maryland car accident cases, arguing that there is some defect in the plaintiff’s case, such that, even if all of the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the plaintiff’s case will still fail.

In order to survive a summary judgment challenge, a party must establish that there is some factual question in the case that needs resolution. If that is the case, the court will deny the motion for summary judgment and submit the case to a jury. However, if the parties essentially agree on the facts and are arguing only over the application of the law, the judge can make the determination.

Court Determines Defendant’s “Wave On” Gesture to Plaintiff Was Not the Proximate Cause of Subsequent Car Accident

August 16, 2017 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Many of us have the experience of sitting in a busy intersection, when a motorist approaching in the opposite direction is attempting to make a left turn through what seems like a solid line of cars. In this situation, it is common for the turning driver to look at one of the cars in the line of traffic in hopes of getting some feedback about whether it is safe to proceed with the turn.

In a recent personal injury case, the court had to determine if a defendant’s “wave on” gesture was the cause of an accident that injured the plaintiff. The case is important for Maryland car accident victims to understand because it illustrates how Maryland courts may interpret the causation element of a personal injury case.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff was an on-duty police officer returning to the police barracks. The plaintiff was traveling westbound, and as he approached the barracks parking lot, he needed to make a left hand turn across two eastbound lanes of traffic. The defendant was traveling on the same road in the opposite direction.

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.

Recent Case Finds Hotel Was Not Liable for Poolside Accident Caused by Drunk Driver

August 2, 2017 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Earlier this month, an appellate court in Florida issued a written opinion in a premises liability lawsuit that was brought by a man whose wife was killed by a drunk driver as she was sitting under a cabana at the defendant hotel’s pool. The plaintiff claimed that the hotel should have erected some sort of barrier to prevent this type of accident from occurring. However, the court ultimately dismissed his case, finding that the hotel did not have a duty to erect a barrier under the circumstances. The case might be of interest to Maryland car accident victims.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff and his wife were visiting the defendant hotel. The couple was outside under a cabana at the hotel’s pool when a drunk driver failed to negotiate a turn in the road, jumped a curb, crashed through the fence surrounding the pool area, and collided with the cabana. As a result of the collision, the plaintiff was injured, and his pregnant wife was killed.

The plaintiff filed a personal injury lawsuit against the hotel, claiming that it was negligent in failing to take precautions to prevent this type of accident from occurring. The plaintiff called several expert witnesses, who testified that the way the road curved next to the hotel meant that cars would be going full-speed as they were heading directly at the hotel’s pool area. Additionally, the plaintiff presented evidence that hotel management knew that motorists would often speed down the section of road adjacent to the hotel.

Dram Shop Liability in Washington, D.C.

July 25, 2017 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

When a driver drinks too much and then gets behind the wheel, they put everyone on the road at risk. It is common knowledge that anyone injured in a Washington, D.C. drunk driving accident can seek compensation for their injuries from the drunk driver. However, what is less known is that a bar, club, or restaurant that over-serves a customer to the point of intoxication may also be held liable in some circumstances. This is known as Dram Shop liability.

In most states that permit Dram Shop cases, there is a specific statute that allows victims to proceed against the serving establishment. However, there is no such statute in Washington, D.C. That being said, Washington, D.C. courts have routinely upheld a plaintiff’s right to seek compensation in Dram Shop cases based on D.C. Code Annotated section 25-781, which prohibits the sale of alcohol to anyone who is intoxicated, appears to be intoxicated, or is known to have a drinking problem. Importantly, Maryland courts have routinely rejected the theory of Dram Shop liability. Thus, Maryland drunk driving victims can hold the serving establishment liable for injuries caused by a drunk driver.

A recent appellate court decision out of Florida illustrates how Dram Shop liability can help an injured plaintiff seek the compensation they deserve.

Court Upholds Personal Injury Plaintiffs’ Decision to File Case in “Home County” of Hit-and-Run Driver

July 18, 2017 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Maryland hit-and-run accidents present a number of legal questions. Most often, these questions are answered by the courts after an accident victim files a claim against their own insurance company that is subsequently denied. Earlier this month, the Georgia Court of Appeals issued a written opinion in a car accident case involving two defendants: a hit-and-run driver listed only as “John Doe,” as well as the named defendant. The court was tasked with determining whether the plaintiff’s choice of venue was proper, given the fact that neither the plaintiff nor the named defendant lived in the county where the case was filed.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiffs were traveling on a Georgia highway when an unknown motorist entered their lane of travel, causing them to slow down in order to avoid a collision. As the plaintiffs’ vehicle slowed, the defendant’s vehicle crashed into the back of the plaintiffs’ vehicle. The vehicle that cut the plaintiffs off drove off without stopping and was never located.

The plaintiffs filed a personal injury lawsuit against the defendant who had struck their car as well as the hit-and-run driver who caused them to slow down in the first place. The plaintiffs’ claim against the defendant was that he was following too closely at the time. The case was filed in the county where the accident occurred.

Court Allows Evidence of “Other Similar Incidents” in Recent Product Liability Car Accident Case

July 11, 2017 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Earlier this month, a federal appellate court issued an interesting written opinion in a product liability case, discussing when a plaintiff is able to introduce evidence of similar defects in the defendant’s product that had occurred in the past.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiffs were stopped at a highway off-ramp when they were rear-ended by a 1996 Toyota that was exiting the highway, traveling at 75 miles per hour. Two of the people in the car were instantly killed, and three other passengers were seriously injured, with one suffering from quadriplegia.

Initially, the other driver was charged with vehicular homicide; however, Toyota later announced a recall of the braking systems of many 1996 Toyotas, including the other driver’s vehicle. He was later exonerated. After the recall and subsequent exoneration, the plaintiffs in the stopped vehicle filed a product liability lawsuit against Toyota.

Appellate Court Determines Government May Be Liable in Car Accident Caused by Falling Rocks

July 4, 2017 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Earlier this month, an appellate court in Hawaii issued a written opinion in a personal injury case brought by the occupants of a vehicle that was struck by rocks that fell onto the highway during a rock slide.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiffs were driving on a Hawaii highway when a rock slide occurred, and debris contained in the slide struck their vehicle. At the time, Hawaii had a system to rate various roads that are at risk of being affected by rock slides. The area where the plaintiffs were injured was known as an area with the highest risk level. The plaintiffs filed a personal injury lawsuit, claiming that the government was negligent in failing to address the area and implement measures to prevent a slide from occurring.

The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the government, finding that while the government was negligent, the government’s negligence was not the cause of the plaintiffs’ injuries. The court concluded that the plaintiffs failed to show that had the government taken action, the slide would have been prevented. The court also determined that the government was entitled to immunity because the decision to have a rock-slide mitigation system was a discretionary one. The plaintiff appealed.

NTSB Issues Report Regarding Last Year’s Fatal Auto-Pilot Crash

June 23, 2017 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Last year, one man was killed when he was driving a vehicle equipped with a semi-auto-pilot feature and crashed into a truck. According to a recent report discussing the findings of a National Highway Safety Board (NTSB) investigation, it appears that the driver of the vehicle was given many warnings to take control of the vehicle in the moments leading up to the fatal accident.

The Accident

The driver of the vehicle was traveling on a Florida highway on a sunny day, using the auto-pilot feature on his Tesla Model S. At some point, a semi-truck made a turn in front of the Tesla, and the driver of the Tesla failed to stop, slamming into the side of the truck. The driver was killed instantly.

After the collision, the NTSB conducted a year-long investigation, only recently releasing its findings. Apparently, for the 41 minutes prior to the accident, the vehicle was in auto-pilot mode for 37.5 minutes. For all but 30 seconds of that time, the driver had his hands off the steering wheel. According to the newly released report, the vehicle’s automated system warned the driver seven times to place his hands back on the steering wheel and retake control of the vehicle.

Court Finds Rental Car Lessee Not Liable in Stolen-Car Accident

June 16, 2017 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Earlier this month, an appellate court in Florida issued an interesting opinion in a car accident case that required the court to determine whether the instructions provided to the jury by the trial judge were appropriate under the circumstances. Ultimately, the court concluded that the provided instruction was proper and affirmed the lower court’s decision.

The Facts of the Case

A rental car company rented a car to a woman while her car was in the shop. The woman lived in her parents’ house, with about 10 to 12 others, most of which were family. According to the woman, she kept the keys in her locked room. However, another witness testified that she kept the keys on the kitchen counter.

One day, a man who was dating one of the other residents in the home took the woman’s car keys, got in the car, and drove to the store. On the way, he struck the plaintiff, who was riding a motorcycle at the time. The plaintiff suffered serious injuries as a result of the accident and filed a personal injury lawsuit against the driver of the car, the woman who rented it, and the company that owned the car.