Legal News

June 3, 2008

Forum Non Conveniens Opinion in Randallstown High School Shootings Case

The Maryland Court of Special Appeals ruled yesterday in Peyton-Henderson v. Evans that Baltimore City Circuit Court Judge George L. Russell, III did not err in transferring a lawsuit from Baltimore City to Baltimore County because of the May 2004 shooting at Randallstown High School.

The ruling covers no new ground, but (sort of) retired Judge Charles E. Moylan Jr. lays out the history of the Maryland case law on forum non conveniens. The court underscored the more modern Maryland trend to focus on “the interests of justice” as opposed to concentrating on convenience of the witness. With a standard as amorphous as “interests of justice” you can be sure that excluding some insane finding, the appeals court will defer to the trial judge. Therefore, I’m surprised this case was initially appealed.

Judge Moylan jabbed lightly at personal injury lawyers who forum shop, quoting now Court of Special Appeals Judge Krauser, “while home may be where the heart is, it is not necessarily where the largest recovery lies.” But, in the next breath, Judge Moylan points out that “is beside the point when dealing with the venue statute rather than forum non conveniens” because Plaintiff is well within his or her right to sue anywhere where the venue is proper.

February 13, 2008

New Maryland Court of Appeals Opinion

by Ronald V. Miller, Jr.

The Maryland Court of Special Appeals decided the Titan v. Advance case yesterday. Titan is a case where the Plaintiff alleged negligent repair of a roof that led to the clogging of a roof drain, which then resulted in the Plaintiff’s premises to flood. It is located on Eastern Avenue in Baltimore, Maryland, at Crown Industrial Park. After a three-day trial, the jury found in favor of the Defendants.

As you might have expected, the amount of rain after the job was completed was relevant. Defendants introduced, over objection, a certified copy of the U.S. Department of Commerce’s weather reports from Baltimore-Washington Airport, which reported rain patterns at the airport between the day the roofing work was completed and the date of the flooding off the roof. Plaintiff objected that the weather at Baltimore Washington Airport on that day was not relevant because it was 10 miles from the site.

The Maryland Court of Special Appeals, in an opinion by Judge Arrie W. Davis, found that the documents were relevant because the parties disputed the amount of rainfall. The court further found that despite the length of the documents, the jury could reasonably interpret the recorded rainfall amounts and the court needed no expert opinion to explain the documents. As to the 10 miles between the Baltimore-Washington Airport and the site of the property, the court concluded this went to the weight of the evidence as opposed to admissibility.

December 26, 2007

Videotaping Independent Medical Exams

by Ronald V. Miller, Jr.

In March, I wrote a blog post discussing whether it makes sense for to videotape medical exams by the defendant’s lawyer’s doctor. Last week, the Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled that a plaintiff who is required to submit to an “independent medical examination” (hereinafter the more honest “defense medical exam”) may videotape the exam.

Here, the doctor had refused a plaintiff’s request to videotape the DME because (1) it would invade the privacy of others in the office; (2) it would be “annoying and distracting” to the DME doctor and his staff; and (3) it would interfere with the doctor’s examination.

Actually, these are not the doctor’s objections. These are the defense lawyer’s objections. The doctor was more than happy to allow the recording of the DME as long as the defendant’s lawyer did not object. These objections are silly. First, obviously, the video should only consist of doctor’s examination of the plaintiff. Second, for $500 an hour, or whatever the doctor is charging, he should be able to bear a minor annoyance and distraction. Finally, there is no reason to believe that videotaping at the DME would interfere with the examination.

October 23, 2007

New Maryland Assumption of the Risk Opinion

by Ronald V. Miller, Jr.

The Maryland Court of Appeals issued an interesting opinion last week on Maryland’s assumption of the risk doctrine in American Powerlifting Association v. Cotillo.

The Plaintiff, a Prince George’s County police officer, suffered injuries in a powerlifting contest at Patuxent High School in Calvert County, Maryland. He brought a negligence claim in Calvert County against the American Powerlifting Association and the Calvert County Board of Education. Essentially, the Plaintiff claimed that two Patuxent High School students, who spotted the Plaintiff during his effort to bench press 530 pounds, could have prevented his injuries. A Calvert County Circuit Court judge granted the Defendant’s motion for summary judgment because the Plaintiff assumed the risk of his injuries.

The Court of Special Appeals affirmed on all counts except the negligence claim grounded in allegations of improper preparatory instruction of the spotter. The court’s reasoning was that the Plaintiff did not know the spotters were improperly trained, and because their improper training presented an enhanced risk not normally incidental to powerlifting, Plaintiff could not have assumed the risk.

The Maryland Court of Appeals disagreed, finding that the assumption of the risk doctrine barred all of Plaintiff’s claims because any person of normal intelligence knows or should know that one risk inherent in powerlifting is that the bar may fall and injure the participant. Continue reading

September 25, 2007

$4 Verdict in Anne Arundel County Drowning Case

by Ronald V. Miller, Jr.

The Maryland Daily Record yesterday reported on a $4 million verdict an Anne Arundel County jury awarded to the parents of a 5-year-old boy who drowned in the Crofton Country Club pool in 2006. The parents of Connor Freed sued D.R.D. Pool Service, Inc, who managed the pool for the country club. The boy was at the pool with some family friend, who found him floating in the pool after a trip to use the bathroom. The suit alleged that the pool was inadequately supervised by only one 16-year-old lifeguard who had 3 weeks’ experience. It further alleged that they incorrectly performed CPR and that they should have used a defibrillator. (D.R.D. filed a cross-claim against the family friend but the jury found him not liable.)

Interestingly, a pretrial ruling dismissed the parents’ claim for the child’s conscious pain and suffering. I do not know all the facts, but unless he was unconscious when he hit the water, I cannot imagine how there could not be a survival action for conscious pain and suffering. [This ruling later was reversed.]

The jury award was 2,000,706 for each of the child’s parents. The 706 represents the child’s birthday of July 6th. That gives me goosebumps. Regrettably, the real recovery will only be about $1,020,000 (plus economic damages) because that is the cap for non-economic damages in a wrongful death case with two or more beneficiaries.

June 25, 2007

Roy Pearson v. Drycleaners Verdict: $0

by Ronald V. Miller, Jr.

Justice was served in Roy Pearson’s lawsuit against his dry cleaners today. A District of Columbia judge ruled that Mr. Pearson would get somewhat less than the $54 million he sought in his lost pants lawsuit: less than zero (the judge awarded court costs to the dry cleaners). This news came as a surprise to… well, no one. The case relieved tort lawyers because the complete debacle was making all plaintiff lawyers look bad by six degrees of separation connection.

Mr. Pearson had sued Custom Cleaners because Pearson said the cleaners lost an expensive pair of his pants. His lawsuit claimed that signs in the dry cleaners that read “same day service” and “satisfaction guaranteed” were misleading to the consumers.

It is 2019 now and this case still gets attention.

June 16, 2007

Roy Pearson’s Lawsuit Against His Dry Cleaner Has the Attention of the Country

by Ronald V. Miller, Jr.

This week has been an all-time record for traffic on the Maryland Personal Injury Lawyer Blog. Is this because of lawyers needing to know my thoughts on the nuances of handling personal injury cases? No. [EDITOR’S UPDATE: There is a verdict: click here for a blog post on this case’s VERDICT.]

For those of you just tuning in to this nonsense, Administrative Law Judge Roy Pearson is suing his dry cleaner for millions of dollars after they lost his pants. On the stand this week, Judge Pearson — I tried, I can’t do it — Mr. Pearson cried on the stand as he recalled the horror of losing the pants from his precious blue and maroon suit.

Mr. Pearson claims to have owned exactly five suits, all Hickey Freemans which do not come cheap, one for each day of the work week. But after putting on a few pounds, his suit rotation system crashed when he picked up his newly altered suits from the dry cleaner and could not find one pair of pants.

April 5, 2007

First Party Bad Faith Passes the Maryland Legislature

by Ronald V. Miller, Jr.

The Maryland Senate has passed House Bill 425 and the Maryland House of Delegates today also passed the bill, which puts a new requirement of good faith for insurance companies dealing with their insureds. The bill now heads to Governor O’Malley for his signature. The Governor has previously pledged support for the bill.

This issue has been a reoccurring topic on the Maryland Personal Injury Lawyer Blog. See this post and this post. My partner, Laura G. Zois, testified before the Maryland Senate and House of Delegates about three weeks ago on this very issue. I know that after the bill passed the Maryland Senate, there were a lot of lobbying efforts from the insurance companies to keep it from passing in the House of Delegates. They pushed the vote back, and I began to doubt whether Maryland would join most states that already have first-party bad faith. I’m thrilled the Maryland Assembly put the interest of Maryland injury victims and consumers ahead of the insurance company and their lobbyists.

This is a huge win for victims and their attorneys who are fighting to get injury victims a fair recovery for their injuries and the benefits of the insurance contract for which they are paying premiums.

March 19, 2007

Maryland Drivers Who Get Speeding Tickets Continue to Speed According to University of Maryland Study

by Ronald V. Miller, Jr.

Ever wonder why your insurance rates go up when you get a speeding ticket? A study of 3.7 million licensed Maryland drivers shows that ticketing does not reduce drivers’ likelihood of getting another ticket for speeding.

Researchers at the University of Maryland School of Medicine looked at Maryland’s licensed drivers and found that getting a speeding ticket almost doubles the risk of receiving a subsequent speeding citation.

The study also turned up interesting data comparing those who go to court for speeding tickets and those that do not. As every Maryland driver knows, if you get a speeding ticket and you were not doing a complete Dale Earnhardt impression, you can either go to court (where you will invariably be found guilty so your best bet is to plead guilty) or you can pay the fine by mail. The University of Maryland study found that the likelihood of receiving another speeding ticket was 12 percent among drivers who had opted to pay fines and received points on their driving records compared to eight percent among those who received probation before judgment (PBJ). This makes sense. The driver who cared enough to go to court is probably more likely to slow down.

March 13, 2007

Peter Angelos Opposes Comparative Negligence

by Ronald V. Miller, Jr.

The Maryland Gazette reports today that Peter G. Angelos is lobbying the General Assembly’s judicial committees to kill a bill that would allow Maryland to join 46 other states in switching from a standard of contributory negligence to one of comparative fault.

Angelos’ fear, which all Maryland plaintiffs’ lawyers fully share, is that with comparative negligence we might lose joint and several liability, which allows plaintiffs to seek full recovery from culpable parties who are not 50% responsible. All defendants who are substantially contributing causes of a plaintiff’s injury are individually fully responsible for the total amount of a jury award to a successful plaintiff. A separate court action later decides how much each defendant pays.

More to the point for Mr. Angelos, his firm handles asbestos cases where some responsible parties are bankrupt. Mr. Angelos’ concern is his potential failure to gain a full recovery in these asbestos cases.