Articles Posted in Personal Injury

In a new Appellate Court of Maryland decision, the court addressed municipal liability for injuries sustained due to potentially negligent maintenance of public infrastructure.

The court examined the concepts of contributory negligence, where a plaintiff’s own negligence might offset the defendant’s liability, and the assumption of risk, assessing whether the plaintiff knowingly and voluntarily exposed himself to a known hazard. Additionally, the court addressed the sufficiency of the City’s notice regarding the potential danger of the storm grate and the relevance of past similar incidents. (Baltimore is always “the City” to me but it makes sense to abbreviate Annapolis that way here.)

While this is an unreported opinion, this case is instructive for understanding how Maryland courts navigate the complexities of these aspects of negligence law, particularly in the context of municipal responsibility and the nuances of contributory negligence and assumption of risk defenses.

You don’t see many Maryland slip-and-fall cases in U.S. District Court.  But Bardroff v. Sanexen Water is the rare slip and fall that found its way to federal court. Last week, Federal Magistrate Judge J. Mark Coulson had an opportunity to rule on a slip-and-fall motion in such a case.

Facts of Bardroff v. Sanexen Water

Sanexen Water began working on the water system on Matthews Drive in Harford County where the plaintiff lived. It was a big job.  Temporary water pipes were placed along the entire length of Matthews Drive, and door hangers were placed on residents’ doors, warning them to be careful around the temporary water network. Plaintiff Bardroff interpreted this warning as an instruction for residents to avoid damaging the temporary water network.

If someone has wrongfully and intentionally caused you great emotional harm in Maryland, you may have a claim for the intentional inflection of emotional distress.

Maryland law, however, does not make it easy to bring an intention infliction of emotional distress claim.  To bring this tort, the plaintiff must demonstrate a “truly devastating effect” from the defendant’s behavior.  The emotional response must be so awful that “no reasonable person could be expected to endure it.”

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress Generally

In 2018, we read about an awful case where a woman went to a Rite-Aid warehouse in Hartford County and killed three people and injuring others before taking her own life. She had been diagnosed with a mental illness and used a gun she had legally purchased during the rampage, a fact that obviously drew some attention.  This is one of the lawsuits to come out of this tragedy.

Facts of Mitchell v. Rite Aid

Snochia Moseley was a temporary worker at the Rite Aid Distribution Center in Aberdeen, Maryland. Prior to September 20, 2018, she had only worked approximately eight shifts at the facility. On that fateful September morning, Moseley reportedly agitated other workers when she cut in front of them to check into work. She then left the facility for a brief period and returned with a handgun.

This page is about what loss of service settlements are worth.

Loss of service damages, also known as loss of consortium damages, refer to compensation awarded in personal injury cases to the spouse or family member of the injured person for the loss of love, companionship, support, and services resulting from the injury. These damages are meant to compensate the non-injured spouse or family member for the adverse impact the injury has on their relationship with the injured person.

Loss of service damages can include various aspects, such as:

Governor O’Malley signed into Maryland law a version of the “Castle Doctrine” that provides civil immunity when defending your house or workplace.

This bill has no practical impact in the real world. Criminals are really not bringing successful claims against homeowners. But, as I explained on the Maryland Injury Lawyer Blog, immunities are all a part of what James Sawyer called the “Long Con.” Clearly, the commenters to this post disagree.

Deadspin has posted about a boy who has filed a lawsuit over injuries suffered while on the bleachers of a dodgeball middle school.

Apparently, the boy was in a car accident and had dental work done. The ball broke his new bridgework.

First, I think Deadspin completely screws up by naming the boy. I cannot imagine what the point would be.