Maryland Car Accident Attorney Blog

The Frustrations of Dealing with an Insurance Company after a Maryland Car Accident

January 24, 2019 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

In the wake of a serious Maryland car accident, accident victims face many difficulties. Of course, these include overcoming the physical and emotional injuries that come along with being involved in a serious accident. However, even after an accident victim has physically recovered as best they can, before they can obtain compensation for their injuries they will likely have to deal with one or more insurance companies.

While Maryland car insurance is required by law and, in theory, operates to the benefit of Maryland accident victims. In reality, insurance companies are for-profit corporations that are motivated by their bottom line. To remain profitable, insurance companies must make more in monthly premiums than they pay out in claims. Thus, insurance companies routinely dispute motorists’ claims or attempt to settle them for as little as possible. A recent opinion issued by a state appellate court illustrates the difficulties a motorist had when trying to file a claim under an underinsured motorist (UIM) insurance policy.

The Facts of the Case

According to the court’s opinion, the plaintiff was seriously injured in a motorcycle accident that was allegedly caused by another driver. The at-fault driver had insufficient insurance coverage to adequately compensate the plaintiff for the injuries he sustained in the accident. The also plaintiff had two insurance policies, one with Allstate as well as a UIM policy with the defendant insurance company.

Government Liability in Maryland Car Accidents Caused by Dangerous or Poorly Maintained Roads

January 17, 2019 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

While governments may be entitled to immunity in some car accidents that are based on a negligent-design theory, the government can still be held liable for failing to safely maintain a road or highway. However, the distinction between design and maintenance is not always clear-cut. For example, consider the following:

A turn with visibility obstructed by large trees or rocks;
An intersection with misleading or improperly marked signage;
Malfunctioning traffic lights;
Dangerous potholes or unmarked hazards; and
Landscaping that obscures motorists’ vision of an intersection or oncoming traffic

A Maryland car accident victim who is injured in an accident that was caused by any of the above scenarios may be able to pursue a claim for compensation against the government agency responsible for maintaining the road. A recent state appellate decision discusses one plaintiff’s case against a local government agency based on the road’s dangerous condition.

Employer Liability in Maryland Auto Accidents

January 10, 2019 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Anyone who is injured in a Maryland car accident can pursue a claim for damages against the party or parties they believe to be responsible for causing the accident that led to their injuries. To succeed in a Maryland personal injury case, the plaintiff must be able to establish that the defendants were negligent.

In this context “negligence” is a legal term referring to a four-part analysis. Thus, in a negligence case, the plaintiff must show that the defendant owed them a duty of care, which was violated by the defendant’s conduct, and that the defendant’s negligence was the cause the plaintiff’s injuries. Most often, Maryland personal injury cases that are filed after a car accident are filed against the other drivers involved in the crash. However, in some situations, a driver’s employer can also be named as a defendant.

In Maryland, a car accident victim can pursue a claim against an employer of a negligent driver if the following criteria are established:

The employer had control over the employee;
The driver’s allegedly negligent action was within the scope of the driver’s employment; and
The action was in furtherance of the employer’s business.

Maryland’s Dead Man Statute May Prevent a Plaintiff from Testifying to Conversations with a Defendant

January 3, 2019 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Recently, a Virginia appellate court issued an opinion discussing the state’s dead man statute, which may preclude a witness from testifying to conversations that the witness had with someone who has died. Ultimately, the Virginia court determined that the deceased defendant’s statement was properly entered into evidence. While Maryland’s dead man’s statute is a little different than Virginia’s, this case helps illustrate the differences. As always, reach out to a Maryland car accident attorney for help answering questions about the facts of your specific situation.

The Facts of the Case

According to the court’s opinion, the plaintiff was involved in a Virginia car accident where the defendant rear-ended him. After the crash but before the case reached trial, the defendant died from unrelated causes.

Evidently, at trial, liability was not at issue because the defendant’s estate admitted the defendant was at fault. However, the estate contested the amount of damages the plaintiff was seeking. In support of its case, the estate presented testimony from the deceased defendant’s son, who testified to a conversation he had with his father shortly after the accident in which the defendant told his son that the accident occurred at “five to seven miles per hour.”

Maryland and Virginia Car Accidents Caused by Unsafe Roads

December 24, 2018 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Chances are, anyone who has spent significant time driving in Maryland or Virginia has come across a section of road or an intersection that seemed unsafe. It may be that a stop sign or stop light was not placed at an intersection that needed it, or a blind corner was too tight to safely navigate without encroaching into oncoming traffic. Regardless, there are hundreds of Maryland and Virginia car accidents that are caused by unsafe roads.

Typically, the local government is responsible for the design and maintenance of roads. Thus, any claim arising from an accident that was due to an unsafe road would necessarily be brought against the local government agency overseeing that particular portion of the highway. However, in both Maryland and Virginia, the states’ immunity laws act to preclude many of these lawsuits.

Government immunity has been around in some form since the birth of the country, and it provides state and federal governments with immunity from lawsuits that are the result of the government carrying out its official duties. The question in these cases often comes down to whether the government’s actions were discretionary in nature. If so, immunity will typically attach, preventing an injury victims’ claim from proceeding. Courts have held that the duty to design roads and place traffic-control devices is a discretionary government function that is entitled to immunity. However, claims against a government agency that allege a failure to keep a road clean and maintain the road safely have been allowed to proceed.

Expert Testimony Is a Critical Component of Some Maryland Car Accident Cases

December 18, 2018 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

For the most part, Maryland car accident cases present straightforward issues that jurors are capable of understanding and digesting. However, some car accident cases may present more complex issues. In this situation, an expert witness will be necessary to help the jurors understand the negligent acts of the defendant and how they led to the plaintiff’s injuries. Thus, the importance of expert witnesses cannot be overstated.

Recently, a federal appellate court issued a written opinion in a personal injury case discussing whether the plaintiff’s expert should have been allowed to submit an amended report after reviewing additional information. Ultimately, the court concluded that the expert’s subsequent report was not admissible and precluded its admission.

The Facts of the Case

According to the court’s opinion, the plaintiffs were the surviving loved ones of a man who was killed in a single-car accident. Evidently, the man’s vehicle inexplicably swerved off the road, crashing into a concrete pillar. Investigators noticed that the grass underneath the man’s vehicle was charred. Days after the accident, the vehicle’s manufacturer issued a recall related to the transmission oil cooler (TOC) based on concerns that a defective TOC may result in an undercarriage fire.

The Importance of Error Preservation in Maryland Personal Injury and Car Accident Cases

December 11, 2018 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

The judge’s role in a Maryland personal injury case is to oversee the trial. This includes making pre-trial discovery and evidentiary decisions, as well as ruling on objections made by the parties during the trial. The judge is also responsible for instructing the jury on the applicable law after the parties have presented their evidence.

Judges, however, are human and occasionally make mistakes. Thus, the Maryland court system allows for a party to appeal an adverse legal decision that was made by a trial judge. In order to preserve a claim of error for appellate review, a party must be sure to follow specific procedures. Otherwise, the appellate court may determine that the error was not preserved. A recent case discusses error-preservation in the personal injury context.

The Facts of the Case

According to the court’s written opinion, the plaintiff was injured in a rear-end accident she claimed was caused by the defendant. Before trial, the plaintiff filed proposed jury instructions including an instruction on the doctrine of negligence per se. After the trial had begun, the court held a charging conference; however, the conference was not memorialized. At the end of the conference, the court determined that it was not going to instruct the jury on the plaintiff’s proposed negligence per se instruction. The court asked the parties if either had anything it wanted to put on the record, and the plaintiff’s attorney responded: “I have no issues with the charge, Your Honor.”

How a Defendant’s Pending Criminal Case Could Affect a Plaintiff’s Maryland Personal Injury Lawsuit

December 4, 2018 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

A Maryland personal injury lawsuit is a civil claim, the purpose of which is to seek compensation for the plaintiff’s injuries. However, the defendant’s actions that resulted in the accident may also rise to the level of criminal conduct. If this is the case, then the defendant may face both criminal and civil charges.

It is not uncommon for a defendant to face both criminal and civil charges. For example, in most Maryland DUI accidents, the defendant can be found both criminally and civilly liable. However, for the most part, a personal injury victim will wait until the outcome of a criminal trial to file their lawsuit. There are several reasons for this, including that a criminal conviction can be helpful to a personal injury plaintiff in proving their case against the defendant. However, there are also other considerations that should be taken into account.

A recent opinion from a state appellate court illustrates one potential issue a personal injury plaintiff could face while litigating a civil claim while the defendant’s criminal matter is pending.

Court Concludes Truck Driver Was Independent Contractor of the Defendant Company, Rather Than an Employee

November 25, 2018 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Recently, a state appellate court issued a written opinion in a personal injury case discussing an important issue that frequently arises in Maryland car accident cases. Specifically, the case involved the question of employer liability following an accident allegedly caused by the negligent actions of an employee.

The Facts of the Case

According to the court’s opinion, the plaintiff, a young child, was seriously injured in an accident with a dump truck. The dump truck driver was hired by Company A, which was working under a contract with Company B. The plaintiff filed a personal injury lawsuit against the dump truck’s driver, Company A, and Company B. The court’s opinion dealt with the potential liability of Company B.

Apparently, the driver of the dump truck tested positive for several controlled substances. The plaintiff claimed that Company B was negligent in failing to ensure that Company A performed a background check on the driver and also that Company B was negligent in failing to determine if the truck driver was drug-free.

Court Concludes Landowner Did Not Have a Duty to Clear Foliage Near Intersection

November 16, 2018 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Recently, a state appellate court issued a written opinion in a personal injury case presenting an interesting issue that will be relevant to many Maryland car accident cases. The case involved the potential liability of a landowner for their alleged failure to trim trees that were on their property that obscured motorists’ view of an adjacent intersection.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiffs were the surviving loved ones of a driver who was killed in a two-car automobile accident. According to the court’s opinion, the collision occurred at the intersection of two gravel roads. The plaintiff owned the property that was adjacent to the southeast corner of the intersection.

Evidently, after the accident, investigating officers noticed that it was impossible for northbound traffic to see vehicles approaching from the west, and vice-versa, due to the presence of dense foliage on the southwest corner of the intersection. The driver of the other vehicle also explained that he was unable to see the deceased driver’s car until he had entered the intersection.