Maryland Car Accident Attorney Blog

Innocent Victims of High-Speed Chase Permitted to Proceed with Case Against Sheriff’s Department

December 25, 2017 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Earlier this month, an appellate court in Georgia issued a written opinion in a car accident case that presents interesting issues for motorists who have been injured in a Maryland car accident due to the negligence of a police officer or another government official. The case required the court to determine if an accident victim’s case should be permitted to proceed against a sheriff’s department that continued a high-speed police pursuit, ultimately resulting in the fleeing driver crashing into the plaintiffs’ car. Since the court found that a jury may find that the sheriffs involved acted with “reckless disregard,” the court permitted the plaintiffs’ case to proceed.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiffs were seriously injured when a fleeing motorist struck their car while the plaintiffs were stuck in traffic in a busy intersection. According to the court’s opinion, the chase began almost an hour earlier when another sheriff’s department observed the driver fail to maintain a single lane of travel.

The sheriff who initiated the pursuit eventually lost control of his vehicle and crashed, resulting in another sheriff department taking over the pursuit. Evidence showed that there was significant traffic at the time, and the suspect was driving aggressively, sometimes over 120 miles per hour.

Court Reverses Car Accident Plaintiff’s Summary Judgment Award Regarding Future Medical Expenses

December 18, 2017 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Earlier this month, an appellate court in Montana issued a written opinion in a personal injury case dealing with a plaintiff’s pre-trial motion for summary judgment on the issue of whether her future medical care was causally related to the car accident. The case is instructive to Maryland car accident victims because it shows the type of analysis courts will conduct when reviewing claims for future medical expenses. Ultimately in this case, the court concluded that there was conflicting evidence regarding the cause of the plaintiff’s ongoing medical needs, and thus summary judgment in the plaintiff’s favor was not appropriate.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff was involved in a car accident with a driver who was insured by the defendant insurance company. On the day of the accident, the plaintiff went to the doctor and was diagnosed with whiplash and related injuries.

The plaintiff’s attorney requested that the insurance company make advance payment of medical expenses, which totaled approximately $53,000 over the course of the next six months. At that time, the insurance company requested the plaintiff to undergo a medical evaluation to determine if the continued medical care she was requesting was a result of the accident. The plaintiff refused the evaluation, and the insurance company denied all future payment for medical expenses.

Car Accident Victim’s Claim Against Insurance Company Dismissed Based on Untimely Filed Notice of Claim

December 11, 2017 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Earlier this month, a state appellate court issued a written opinion in a personal injury case illustrating the difficulties that Maryland car accident victims may encounter when trying to file a claim against their own insurance policy’s underinsured motorist provision. The case required the court to determine if the plaintiff’s untimely notice of claim violated the language in the insurance policy, and if so, whether the insurance company was proper in denying the plaintiff’s claim. Ultimately, the court found in favor of the insurance company on both issues and dismissed the plaintiff’s claim.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff was injured after she was involved in a car accident while she was a passenger in a friend’s vehicle. The accident occurred in September 2010. Approximately two years later, the plaintiff filed a claim against the other driver, who she claimed was responsible for the accident and her injuries. That claim was eventually settled for approximately $36,000, which was the remaining amount left under the at-fault driver’s insurance policy after the other victims of the accident had been compensated.

The settlement with the other driver failed to cover all of the plaintiff’s expenses related to the accident, so the plaintiff then filed a claim with her own insurance policy, under the underinsured motorist provision. That policy contained language requiring that the insurance company be promptly notified of any accident, as well as any court case that was filed. Specifically, the policy stated that the insurance company “must be notified promptly of how, when and where the accident or loss happened,” and the insured must “promptly send us copies of the legal papers if a suit is brought.”

Maryland Car Accidents Involving Out-of-State Drivers

December 4, 2017 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Due to Maryland’s small size and healthy economy, many people who work in Maryland live outside the state and commute into Maryland on a daily basis. As a natural result, some Maryland car accidents will involve out-of-state motorists. While this may not necessarily present a problem for an accident victim, there are several potential issues that should be considered to avoid a problem down the road.

A recent opinion from a Georgia court illustrates the potential problems that an accident victim who is injured in an accident caused by an out-of-state motorist may face when seeking compensation for their injuries.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff was a Georgia resident who was attending school in California. Her car was registered and insured in Georgia. One day while driving in California, the plaintiff was involved in a car accident with another motorist. The plaintiff filed a personal injury case against the other motorist.

Court Determines Photographs of Defect in Road Did Not Show Government’s Knowledge of the Hazard

November 23, 2017 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Earlier this month, an appellate court in Georgia issued a written opinion in a personal injury case involving allegations against a local government responsible for maintaining a section of road where the plaintiff was involved in an accident. The case explores an interesting issue for Maryland car accident victims who are considering filing a case against a local or state government agency. Specifically, the case involves the issue of whether the government entity had notice of the hazard alleged to have caused the plaintiff’s accident and subsequent injuries.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff was involved in a head-on collision with another vehicle after he lost control of his car after running over a section of broken pavement surrounding a manhole cover. The plaintiff filed a personal injury lawsuit against the city that was in charge of maintaining that specific portion of roadway. The plaintiff did not claim that the city was negligent in constructing or repairing the damaged road; the plaintiff’s only claim was that the city was negligent in failing to fix the hazard.

One of the required elements of this type of claim is that the plaintiff must establish that the defendant had notice of the hazard. Otherwise, courts will not find that the defendant had a duty to repair the damaged road. In support of his case, the plaintiff presented photographs of the damaged road that were taken two weeks after the accident. The plaintiff argued that this showed that the government would have had knowledge of the damage.

Court Prevents Expert’s Testimony Regarding Necessity of Medical Bills Based on Plaintiff’s Late-Filed Notice

November 16, 2017 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Earlier this month, an appellate court in Nebraska issued a written opinion in a personal injury lawsuit that illustrates the importance of choosing a diligent and knowledgeable Maryland personal injury attorney. The case involved the parties’ disagreement over whether certain expert testimony presented by the plaintiff should be considered by the jury. Ultimately, the court concluded that the lower court was proper when it precluded the testimony based on the plaintiff’s failure to disclose the substance of the expert’s testimony during discovery.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff was injured in a car accident involving the daughter of the defendants. Forty months after the accident, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendants. In response, the defendants did not dispute that their daughter was negligent in causing the accident, but they argued that the accident was not the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries.

The plaintiff was slow to prosecute the case, taking several continuances and missing several deadlines. At least some of the delay was due to health issues the plaintiff’s attorney was confronting during the pendency of the case. Ultimately, the plaintiff retained new counsel, who also had to withdraw due to medical reasons.

Court Permits Car Accident Case to Proceed Against Company in Charge of Maintaining Back-Up Battery System in Traffic Lights

November 9, 2017 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Earlier this month, an appellate court in California issued a written opinion discussing whether a private company that had contracted with a city to maintain back-up battery power for traffic lights could be held liable for an accident that occurred during a power outage. The case presents interesting issues that are relevant for all Maryland car accident victims who are considering filing a claim for damages against the parties they believe to be responsible for the accident that caused their injuries.

The Facts of the Case

Back in 2004, the City of Glendale installed back-up battery packs in all of the city’s traffic lights so that when there was a power outage, the lights would continue to be operational. A few years later, the city contracted with the defendant, a private company, to perform all necessary maintenance on the back-up battery system.

In 2011, the traffic light at one specific intersection began showing “low voltage” indicators. For whatever reason, the battery packs were not holding a charge. In August of that year, new battery packs were installed, but no batteries were placed in the units.

Court Determines Insurance Company Waived Issue by Not Raising It in a Timely Manner

November 2, 2017 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Earlier this month, an appellate court in Florida issued an opinion in a personal injury case that may be of interest to Maryland car accident victims who are considering filing a claim against an insurance company. The case required the court to determine if the plaintiff’s failure to comply with a contractual term in her insurance contract barred her from recovering on her claim. The court explained that the insurance company’s position was correct; however, since it did not raise the issue in a timely manner, the court considered the company’s objections waived.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff was injured in a car accident that was caused by a driver who did not have adequate insurance to cover the injuries the plaintiff sustained in the accident. However, the plaintiff was covered by two other insurance policies: her mother’s policy with Allstate and her father’s policy with Geico. The Allstate policy had underinsured motorist protection of $25,000; the Geico policy’s protection offered $20,000.

The plaintiff filed a claim only with the Allstate policy, claiming that the insurance company should cover her expenses that were not covered by the at-fault driver’s policy. When she filed her claim, the plaintiff averred that all necessary conditions had been satisfied.

Fireman’s Rule Prevents On-Duty Police Officer from Recovering Compensation After Car Accident

October 24, 2017 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Earlier this month, an appellate court in Georgia issued a written opinion in a car accident case that applies a principle of law also seen in Maryland car accident cases. The case required the court to discuss and apply the “fireman’s rule,” which may act to prevent emergency responders from recovering compensation from those whose negligent acts necessitated their services. Ultimately, the Georgia court determined that the facts as presented fit within the fireman’s rule, and it dismissed the plaintiff’s case.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff was a law enforcement officer who was injured while responding to a car accident. The court’s version of the facts showed that the defendant, a used car dealership, mowed the lawn surrounding the dealership and failed to clean up the clippings. The clippings then blew into the roadway. Shortly afterward, it began to rain.

The wet clippings made the roadway slick, and a motorist was involved in a collision. The plaintiff and another law enforcement officer received a radio call for assistance. As the plaintiff was responding to the scene of the accident, he lost control of the vehicle when he encountered the wet grass clippings.

Appellate Court Affirms Jury’s Verdict in Product Liability Case against Auto Manufacturer

October 17, 2017 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Earlier this month, an appellate court in Nevada issued a written opinion in a product liability case that will be of interest to anyone who is considering filing a Maryland product liability lawsuit. The case required the court to consider the defendant auto manufacturer’s argument that the risk-utility test should be adopted over the consumer-expectations test, which had long been the prevailing test for product liability claims. Ultimately, the court rejected the auto manufacturer’s request to adopt the risk-utility test and affirmed the jury’s verdict in favor of the plaintiff.

Maryland courts apply the consumer-expectations test when evaluating a product liability lawsuit. This test requires courts to put themselves in the position of a consumer, asking whether the product at issue performed as expected under the circumstances. Some other jurisdictions apply the risk-utility test, which asks whether there is a reasonably safe alternative design that the manufacturer could have used rather than the design that was actually used. Under this test, it is the plaintiff’s burden to establish that the reasonable alternative exists.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff was driving an SUV manufactured by the defendant, with her husband riding as the front-seat passenger. As the plaintiff attempted a lane change, the trailer she was towing began to fishtail, and the SUV flipped over, rolling several times. When the vehicle came to a stop, it was resting on its roof. The plaintiff was able to slip out of the window, but her husband was crushed. The plaintiff filed this product liability lawsuit against the auto manufacturer, claiming that the SUV’s roof was not sufficiently tested and was defectively designed.