Articles Posted in Maryland Courts

Late last year, the Maryland Court of Appeals decided yet another “Should we shoot for justice or dwell on the hypertechnical?” case in Lisy Corp v. McCormick and Co.   The court went the wrong way.

Here, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit in Howard County alleging both tort and contract claims.  When you file a lawsuit in Maryland, you fill out a Case Information Report (“CIR”) to serve on the Defendant.  A CIR is a three-page administrative form that helps the court process cases. The court is looking to find out things like the nature of the claim and the amount of damages that are sought and, most germane to this case, whether the Plaintiff is seeking a jury trial.

Maryland Rule 16-202(b) makes it abundantly clear that the purpose of the CIR is only case management by the court.  But it is also undisputedly a clear intention by the Plaintiff to seek a jury trial.

The Plaintiff’s attorney asked for a jury trial in the CIR but neglected to file a separate document as required by the rules requesting a jury trial.  So the question in the case is whether a CIR is an acceptable vehicle for demanding a jury trial under Maryland law.

Continue reading

Last week, the Maryland Court of Appeals decided Falls Garden Condominium Association v. Falls Homeowner’s Association.  It is not a personal injury case. In fact, it’s a case about parking spots. But Falls Garden is actually a case about settlement contracts and their enforceability.  If you are a Maryland personal injury lawyer, you need to know when a deal is actually a binding deal.

Typically, counsel on both sides of the aisle assume that you have a binding deal when you agree to the numbers on the claim.  Most settlements really do go smooth, particularly in car accident cases.  State Farm, GEICO, and their brethren do not really care about confidentially, admissions, or anything else outside of its standard form settlement agreement.   But malpractice insurers and their doctors and hospitals and product liability defendants often treat settlement agreements like they are reinventing the wheel.

Keep in mind that, as plaintiffs’ attorneys, we never really have those types of things we are trying to slip in under the wire for a settlement.  Our essential term is money and we are not trying to get the defendants to agree to other terms in personal injury cases.

But she caught me on the counter (It wasn’t me)
Saw me banging on the sofa (It wasn’t me)
I even had her in the shower (It wasn’t me)
She even caught me on camera (It wasn’t me)
She saw the marks on my shoulder (It wasn’t me)
Heard the words that I told her (It wasn’t me)
Heard the scream get louder (It wasn’t me) – Shaggy (2000)

U.S. District Court Judge Paul Grimm granted summary judgment for Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority last week in a slip and fall, no impact bus accident case in Hall v. WMATA. A slip and fall no collision “the door shut on me” bus accident case in federal court?  I know it sounds bad, sure. But it gets worse.

Continue reading

Maryland courtrooms are slow keeping up with the times.  This is not an altogether bad thing.  What happens in the courtroom matters and we should probably let society work out the kinks of technology and understand all of the potential unintended consequences before our judicial system leaps into the next big thing.

That said, geez.  It is 2014.  Can we get wi-fi in the courtrooms?  I can’t even get my phone on the Internet in some courthouses, like P.G. County Circuit Court  not to name any names.  We can e-file pleadings in federal court now and will be able to in state court at some point.  But we are about 15 years behind the curve.  Let’s not let the world get a full generation lead in technology over our courts.

One of the big issues that is increasingly getting attention is witnesses testifying at trial without showing up at trial.  Skype is the primary method that gets talked about, probably because its low cost makes it the most desirable.

Continue reading

Update: Stop the presses.  This rule has already been repealed.

We have a new rule in Maryland: Rule 1-322.2:

Rule 1-322.2 shall take effect and apply to all actions commenced on or after July 1, 2014, and insofar as practicable to all actions then pending.

(a) Certificate Required. Every pleading or paper filed in an action on or after July 1, 2014 shall contain either:

(1) a certificate of compliance with Rule 1-322.1 that is signed by an individual who is (A) the party filing it or an attorney for the party, or (B) if the paper is filed by a nonparty, the person filing it or the person’s attorney, employee, or agent; or

(2) in an affected action under Title 20 of these Rules, a certificate that complies with Rule 20-201 (f)(1)(B).

Cross reference: For the definition of “affected action,” see Rule 20-101.

(b) Action by Clerk. The clerk shall not accept for filing any pleading or other paper requiring a certificate under section (a) of this Rule unless the pleading or paper contains the certificate.

Source: This Rule is new.

Continue reading

The Maryland Court of Appeals just affirmed a lead paint verdict against the Baltimore Housing Authority.  This is yet another case where a governmental entity sought the refuge of the Local Government Tort Claims Act.   Thankfully, the Baltimore Housing Authority could not avail causing brain damage to a child via this loophole, at least not in this case.

Facts of Case

The plaintiff lived in a Baltimore Housing authority for two years after her birth in 1995.   She was exposed, she alleged, to chipping and peeling lead-based paint.  Her lead level was 13 mcg/dl.  When I defended these cases in the ’90s, we would have rolled our heads at that number.  Now we know better.   A level like this can cause actual injury and can bring a large jury verdict in Baltimore.

The story from here is familiar.  The plaintiff’s mom noticed classic lead-related injuries manifested themselves early: attention issues,  delays in learning to read, and behavioral problems.  Plaintiff’s experts testified that she lost 5-7 IQ points.

The Baltimore Housing Authority put on its usual witnesses – Patrick Connor, Joseph Scheller, Joel Morse, etc. – to argue that the girl was not injured by lead-based paint.

The jury did not buy-in,  awarding $160,000 in future lost wages (which seems low) and $1.1 million in non-economic damages. Under Maryland’s cap for non-economic damages, this portion of the award was reduced to $530,000.  Why so low?  The injuries occurred in 1995 when the cap was much lower. Continue reading

In Pearson v. State, the Maryland Court of Appeals earlier this month addressed the important question of which voir dire questions, if requested, must be asked of prospective jurors.  Why am I writing about it?   It might have important ramifications on civil personal injury jury cases.

The case’s facts are simply: Pearson is indicted and convicted for a narcotics offense.  On appeal, he argues that he has been denied a fair trial because he could not ask certain questions during voir dire.  Pearson claims that the trial court committed reversible error when it refused to ask the venire panel:

1. if any member of the panel, or any member’s family, friend, or acquaintance had ever been the victim of a crime; and
2.  if any member of the panel was ever a member of a law-enforcement agency or “kn[e]w anyone who is employed” by a law-enforcement agency.   Both requests had been denied by the trial court.
3. Do any of you have strong feelings about [the crime with which the defendant is charged]?

Maryland only allows questions to be presented during voir dire if the question is “reasonably likely to reveal specific cause for disqualification.”  Maryland only recognizes two specific instances that comprise specific cause for disqualification: (1) a statute disqualifies a prospective juror or (2) a collateral matter is reasonably liable to have “undue influence over a prospective juror.”  Under the second category, which this case addressed, a matter has undue influence if it addresses biases that create a “demonstrably strong correlation” with a mental or emotional state that will improperly influence a juror’s decisions. Continue reading

New Uninsured Motorist and Jury Awarded Zero in Pain and Suffering Damages Opinion

Last week in Keller v. Serio, the Maryland Court of Appeals took yet another look at two issues that have been reoccurring leitmotifs in Maryland appellate opinions: (1) to what extent can we talk about uninsured motorist coverage in an uninsured motorist case and (2) whether a jury can award zero damages when all the facts suggested otherwise.  Keller is a motor vehicle negligence action instituted solely against the at-fault driver.   Negligence was conceded, and the issues at trial were confined to causation and damages. GEICO, although not a party to the action, realized the possibility that, as the plaintiff’s insurer, the plaintiff might get a verdict exceeding the liability coverage.  GEICO intervened in the case.  At trial, GEICO did the “UM potted plant defense” of just sitting at the trial table and doing absolutely nothing.   Plaintiff’s counsel alluded to GEICO during opening statements but thereafter did not mention the insurer, its policy, or anything about UM policies. At the close of the trial, the plaintiff’s counsel sought an instruction clarifying for the jury (a) how UM policies work and how they should not influence an award of damages and (b) clarify any confusion that may have resulted from GEICO’s presence at the trial.   The trial court refused the instruction.   The jury returned $29,355.69 in economic damages, yet $0 in noneconomic damages. That, folks, is what you call a bad verdict.  Plaintiff argued that such a breakdown of damages is inconsistent, illogical, and evidence that the trial court’s failure to give the UM instruction was reversible error.   No one can argue with the former part of that sentence.   It is illogical to say someone incurred nearly $30,000 in medical bills and did not suffer unless the evidence was that the Plaintiff was made of stone.  The question is whether it warrants nullifying the jury’s verdict and whether the uninsured motorist mess played out appropriately.  The Maryland high court said no and yes and shot down the plaintiff”s appeal.

Continue reading

The U.S. District Court for Maryland made a noteworthy ruling in Jackson v. Johnson, a Maryland auto tort case that is an interesting case that involves federal diversity law and interesting plaintiffs’ lawyer tactics in finding their preferred venue for the case.

Plaintiffs’ Venue Tactics on Full Display

The Battleground