Legal News

March 19, 2007

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

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 7, 2007

Most Outrageous Lawsuits: The Attack on Personal Injury Lawyers Continues Unabated

by Ronald V. Miller, Jr.

America Online (AOL) is running an article titled “Most Outrageous Lawsuits.” It appears in the money and finance section of AOL and was also prominently displayed on the AOL home page. As a frequent user of AOL (I really love their product) for the last 11 years, I keep seeing this article over and over.

The “crazy lawsuits” AOL describes come directly from groups like Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse (CALA) and the American Tort Reform Association (ATRA), groups who see personal injury lawyers as the great Satan whose sole mission is to destroy corporate America while lining our pockets with millions of dollars.

These groups rely on a false premise: that the American public cannot be trusted and American juries give out ridiculous awards that unsubstantiated by the evidence or even common sense. The groups that vilify personal injury lawyers are entitled to their opinion and they are not wrong that frivolous lawsuits sometimes get filed. What it does not entitle them to is their own facts. But they often make up their own facts, manufacturing insane lawsuits and verdicts that never happened.

October 1, 2006

Maryland Cap on Non-Economic Damages

by Ronald V. Miller, Jr.

The cap on pain and suffering damages in Maryland for claims arising after today has increased to $680,000. This is also the maximum cap on any non-medical malpractice wrongful death case if there is only one claimant. The wrongful death cap with two or more beneficiaries in a non-medical malpractice case is now $1,020,000.

The pain and suffering cap in Maryland in medical malpractice cases as the result of a bill that the General Assembly passed last year remains at $650,000. This is also the maximum cap on medical malpractice wrongful death cases if there is only one claimant. The wrongful death cap with two or more beneficiaries in medical malpractice cases that arise after today is $812,500.

September 20, 2006

Maryland Negligent Security Appellate Opinion and Case Law

by Ronald V. Miller, Jr.

This is a 14-year-old post, but it was updated on May 3, 2020, to give the current state of negligent security law in Maryland.

the Maryland Court of Special Appeals decided the case of Veytsman z. New York Palace, Inc. The issue in Veytsman was whether a nightclub had a duty to protect its patrons from being attacked by fellow patrons.

The court found that the nightclub had no such duty, affirming Baltimore City Circuit Judge Evelyn Omega Cannon’s ruling. The opinion underscores how difficult it is to hold nightclubs responsible for altercations that invariably occur in nightclubs, bars, and restaurants. But I also want to explain how to bring a negligent security case in Maryland.

March 19, 2006

Resident Relative for Uninsured Motorist Coverage

by Ronald V. Miller, Jr.

The Maryland Court of Special Appeals had occasion this month to consider what makes up a resident relative for uninsured motorist coverage in Mundey v. Erie Insurance Group. Here, The Maryland intermediate appellate court found a Prince George’s County man who had been living with his grandmother in Waldorf, Maryland (Charles County) for almost a year not to be a resident relative of his parents who lived in Lusby, Maryland and therefore his parents’ uninsured motorist coverage with Erie Insurance could not apply to his auto accident.

The Plaintiff, who the Court noted was not a full-time student, lived with his grandparents for the 11 months preceding the auto accident. During that time, the Plaintiff visited his parents’ home approximately four to six times, spending the night on Thanksgiving and Christmas. On these holidays, Plaintiff slept on an extra bed in his younger brother’s room because they had converted his bedroom for other uses after he left. Erie Insurance’s accident lawyers argued that under these facts, the jury should not deem the Plaintiff a resident relative and could not recover from Erie Insurance for his personal injuries from his auto accident under his parents’ uninsured motorist policy. Plaintiff’s personal injury lawyer, Waldorf attorney Michael J. Schreyer, contended that “resident,” as defined in Erie Insurance’s policy, limits the statutorily required uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage and makes up an impermissible exclusion from coverage, thus violating the public policy goals of Md. Code Ann., Ins. § 19-509.

The Maryland Court of Special Appeals disagreed with Plaintiff’s attorney, ruling that Plaintiff was not a “resident” of his parents’ Lusby home as defined by their insurance contract with Erie Insurance. The court reasoned that according to the policy, the Plaintiff would be a resident only if he physically lived in his parents’ household, is under the age of 24, and attends school full-time. Writing for the court, Judge J. Frederick Sharer found that the “undisputed evidence before the court established that the appellant failed to meet either definition of ‘resident’ because he did not physically live in his parents’ home and did not attend college.”