Posted on February 10, 2009 in Personal Injury

A jury in Howard County, Maryland recently awarded a woman $188,000.00 for injuries she sustained as a car accident victim traveling in a co-workers vehicle, according to an article appearing in todays Dailty Record. Experienced Maryland Accident Attorneys can help victims injured in automobile accidents recover for their injuries. If you are having trouble dealing with your or the other drivers insurance company, an experienced attorney can help you navigate the judicial process to maximize your recovery.

After a two-day damages trial, Sandra Jenkins, a 45-year-old network analyst for Verizon Wireless, won $48,000 for medical expenses due to her neck injury, $8,000 for loss of income for the more than three months she could not work, and $132,000 for pain and suffering. The Jury ultimately awarded Ms. Jenkins $188,000.00 after the Insurance company made a lowball offer of $32,000.00.

Oftentimes, insurance companies refuse to pay accident victims the true value of their claims. This is where an experienced accident attorneycan help injured Maryland car accident victims receive a large settlement or jury verdict.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on February 09, 2009 in Business Counseling, Litigation & Transactions

As a trial lawyer, I have successfully handled several copyright infringement cases representing both the plaintiff and the defendant. Although these types of cases involve an area of the law that most people and lawyers are not familiar with, it really is not that complicated once you sink your teeth into them.

Generally, copyright protects the original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, including: (1) literary works; (2) musical works, including any accompanying words; (3) dramatic works, including any accompanying music; (4) pantomimes and choreographic works; (5) pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works; (6) motion pictures and other audiovisual works; (7) sound recordings; and (8) architectural works.

Copyright protection of an original work of authorship does not extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work. The term "literary works" is not meant to suggest any criterion of literary merit or qualitative value, rather the term has been broadened to include catalogs, directories, and similar factual, reference, or instructional works and compilations of data. It also includes computer data bases, and computer programs to the extent that they incorporate authorship in the programmer’s expression of original ideas, as distinguished from the ideas themselves. Also, "Advertisement Copy" is considered "Literary Works."

To establish copyright infringement, plaintiff would have to prove both the ownership of a valid copyright and copying by the defendant. In order for Winn’s to be copyrightable, the mailer must be deemed "original," or as elaborated by the Supreme Court: "[o]riginal, as the term is used in copyright, means only that the work was independently created by the author (as opposed to copied from other works), and that it possesses at least some minimal degree of creativity."

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on February 08, 2009 in Personal Injury

The Baltimore Sun is reporting very sad news coming out of Westminster this morning. Apparently a driver of a Ford pickup truck slammed into the rear of a Chevrolet Cavalier that was full of McDaniel College students around 11:00pm yesterday. The 19 year old student, Thomas Rouleau, of Gilboa, N.Y., died at the scene. Four other students were in the car, three of which were taken to University of Maryland-Shock Trauma. Fortunately those injuries were not life threatening and they were released.

Our hearts go out to the family and friends of Mr. Rouleau, who apparently was not responsible for this accident. It is reported that this was the second accident in a matter of minutes the driver of the Ford pickup had caused and fled. Sadly in these situations, experience shows that their is a strong possibility the hit and run driver may have been under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Hopefully the police will find the driver today and bring him/her to justice. Just by leaving the scene of an accident involving death, the fleeing driver is subject to a penalty of up to ten years in jail. Additional charges may be warranted.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on February 07, 2009 in Personal Injury

In a shocking revelation, the FDA confirmed yesterday that the Georgia peanut company linked to the salmonella outbreak knowingly shipped products it knew were laced with the contamination. Apparently the company had confirmed contamination as far back as 2007, according to an AP article appearing in today’s Baltimore Sun.

From a legal standpoint, this revelation may open the door to the recovery of punitive damages against the Georgia company and its officers. In addition, criminal charges are likely to be closely examined. The Justice Department has confirmed opening a criminal investigation. The salmonella outbreak has been blamed for at least eight deaths and 575 illnesses in 43 states.

Problems at the plant date back to 2001 when FDA inspectors found that products potentially were exposed to insecticides, "one of several violations uncovered during the last visit federal officials made before the current food-poisoning scare, according to a report obtained by The Associated Press" the Baltimore Sun reports.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on February 06, 2009 in Driving Under the Influence

In Maryland, DUI/DWI Attorneys are often confronted with cases in which a client was found not to be driving while impaired or under the influence, but instead was found to be sleeping in his or her vehicle while under the influence of alcohol. This situation implicates the so called "shelter defense" in Maryland. Unlike in some other states, Maryland legislators have chosen not to make sleeping in one’s vehicle an absolute defense to DUI/DWI charges. Some states have decided that as a matter of public policy, they want to encourage people who are driving under the influence to pull over and "sleep it off" so to speak, rather than continue to endanger the public by continuing down the road while under the influence. In these States, it matters not where the person was parked, how long they had been there or whether or not they admit to driving the vehicle to the location while under the influence. If the person made the decision to pull over and park their car rather than continue to drive under the influence, they simply may not be prosecuted for DUI/DWI in these states. Not so in Maryland.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on February 06, 2009 in Personal Injury

There are many defective product cases which cause serious personal injury or death. Often, fire or explosion may cause such significant damage to the product that the actual specific cause for the accident can not be determined. The first example to come to mind is an airplane exploding into a million pieces. We know that this is not supposed to happened and that something obviously went wrong. The problem for the lawyer representing victims is how to prove it? Often times, when no physical evidence is preserved in a products liability case, the victim’s lawyers may be forced to rely on the "Indeterminate Defect Theory" . I have done significant research in this area and hope that the legal analysis below will help others similarly situated.

As a threshold matter, in a Maryland product liability action, proof of a defect must arise above surmise, conjecture or speculation, and a plaintiff may not base recovery solely on any presumption that might arise from the happening of an accident. See International Motors, Inc v. Ford Motor Co., 133 Md. App. 269, 275 n.7, 754 A.2d 115, 118 n. 7 (2000). Notwithstanding the above, an inference of a defect may be drawn from the happening of an accident where circumstantial evidence tends to eliminate other causes, such as product misuse or alteration; i.e., an indeterminate defect. The first case in Maryland to address this circumstance was Harrison v. Bill Cairns Pontiac, 77 Md. App. 41, 549 A.2d 385 (1988). The Harrison Court found that the five factors to be considered when determining whether a product defect may be inferred include:

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on February 06, 2009 in Personal Injury

In Maryland, liability of a lessor may NOT be imposed in a tort action via the doctrine of strict liability. Bona v. Graefe, 264 Md. 69, 285 A.2d 607 (1972). Restatement (Second) § 402A, quite simply, is not applicable to lessors.

Section 402A states:

(1) One who sells any product in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the
user or consumer or to his property is subject to liability for physical harm thereby caused to the ultimate user or consumer, or to his property, if
(a) the seller is engaged in the business of selling such a product, and (b) it is expected to and does reach the user or consumer without substantial
change in the condition in which it is sold.

(2) The rule stated in Subsection (1) applies although
(a) the seller has exercised all possible care in the preparation and sale of his
product, and (b) the user or consumer has not bought the product from or entered into any
contractual relation with the seller.

In Maryland, liability of a bailor/lessor for hire of a chattel may be imposed in a tort action for negligence. In a negligence case, the plaintiff must prove not merely that the lessor failed to make proper inspections, but either that the lessor knew of a defect or that a reasonable inspection, if made, would have disclosed the defect. Bona v. Graefe, 264 Md. 69, 285 A.2d 607 (1972). Maryland Civil Pattern Jury Instruction 26:4 states that the lessor of a product "must use reasonable care to make it safe for its reasonably foreseeable usage, and this duty includes the giving of adequate warning of dangers which are not obvious to the user but are known, or through reasonable care should be known to the lessor." Arguably, a lessor, at times may occupy a similar role/position to a retailer or non-manufacturing supplier. Maryland courts have held that where a seller or other non-manufacturing supplier is nothing more than a conduit between the manufacturer and a customer, the retailer ordinarily has no duty in a negligence to discovery the defects or dangers of a particular product. Eagle Picher Ind. v. Balbos, 326 Md. 179, 604 A.2d 445 (1992). The non-manufacturing supplier, however, may do something more than merely act as a conduit of goods, such as installation, and those additional acts may impose a higher standard of care upon the supplier; i.e., inspect or test the product. Id. (although the issues regarding improper installation were not made).

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on February 05, 2009 in Driving Under the Influence

Breathalyzer machines, commonly used by Maryland police, detect and measure the alcohol present in air that is breathed out. During the consuption of alcohol, the alcohol crosses from the intestine into the bloodstream. When the blood circulating around the body gets to the lungs, some of the alcohol in the blood crosses into the air contained in the tiny sacs of the lungs. This same air, that is breathed out of the lung, contains alcohol that can be measured by breathalyzer machines.

Researchers have determined the ratio of breath alcohol to blood alcohol. The test result for a breathalyzer estimates the concentration of alcohol in the blood. Although different individuals have some variation, blood alcohol concentration (BAC) is approximately 2,300 times greater than breath alcohol concentration. Breath-alcohol analysis is fast and easy to use, unlike the more reliable blood test. This makes the Breathalyzer breath-test machine a useful tool of choice for Maryland police to monitor drunk drivers.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on February 05, 2009 in Personal Injury

Maryland courts apply the "going and coming rule" which provides that "injuries received by an employee while going to or returning from his place of employment do not arise ‘out of and in the course of’ employment , and therefore are not compensable" under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. Wiley Manufacturing Co. v. Wilson, 280 Md. 200, 206 (1977). The rule is based on the premise that workmen’s compensation law is for injuries incurred by an employee engaged in a service that is growing out of his employment. Id. As such an employee who is going to or coming from work is not rendering services related to his employment and is exposed to hazards as a member of the general public and not as an employee.

There are two generally recognized exceptions to the ‘going and coming rule.’ The first is the ‘premises’ exception and the second is the proximity or special hazard rule. The application of these exceptions turns on the individual facts of each case. Id. at 210.

THE PREMISES EXCEPTION

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on February 05, 2009 in Personal Injury

Question Presented: What standard of care is owed by a Maryland driver upon entrance into a controlled intersection, where the traffic signal is blank due to malfunction?

Short Answer: Maryland statutes do not specifically address the standard of care applicable where traffic signals at a controlled intersection fail to operate. Drivers of motor vehicles in Maryland always owe a duty of reasonable care, and whether a driver has exercised reasonable care in a particular circumstance is generally a question of fact for the jury. A driver’s right to assume he has the right of way is an important factor in determining whether the standard for reasonable care is met. Should Maryland’s "boulevard rule" apply to the facts, the "favored driver" is presumed to have the right of way.

Analysis:

In Maryland, drivers of motor vehicles always owe a duty of reasonable, ordinary care. Kaffl v. Moran, 233 Md. 473 (1964). The caution required to meet this standard will vary depending upon the circumstances, but the standard remains the same. Heffner v. Admiral Taxi Ser., Inc., 196 Md. 465.

Continue Reading ››