Settlement to Minors In Maryland Personal Injury Cases

There are unfortunately many instances where a minor child is injured as a result of the careless choices someone else had made. In these circumstances special attention must be given to the future consequences of the injury, if any. In Maryland personal injury cases the law requires certain provisions be observed when settling a minor's claim. These provisions are to insure that the minor child receive the benefit of the settlement. The law governing settlement of a minor's claims is outlined below. The provision apply only in situations where the proceeds the minor is to receive exceeds $5,000.00. And require funds to be held in trust for the benefit of the child until age of majority. Particualr language must be written on the check in distribution to the minor as outlined below.
§ 13-403. Payment to trustee

(a) Unless a court appoints a guardian of the property of a minor under subsection (c) of this section, if a minor or any other person in whose name a claim in tort is made or judgment in tort obtained on behalf of a minor recovers a net sum of $5,000 or more, the person responsible for the payment of the money shall make payment by check made to the order of


"................................., trustee under Title 13 of the Estates and
          (name of trustee)

Trusts Article, Annotated Code of Maryland, for .............................,
                                                               (name of minor)

minor".


(b) No other act is necessary to constitute the person named a trustee.


(c)(1) In accordance with the procedures for the appointment of a guardian under Subtitle 2 of this title, the court may appoint a guardian of the property of a minor on whose behalf a recovery in tort is sought or has been obtained if the court determines that the appointment would be in the minor's best interest.
(2) The petition for guardianship may be made by an interested person or a trustee under this subtitle.

(d) If a court appoints a guardian of the property of a minor under subsection (c) of this section and the minor or any other person in whose name a claim in tort is made or judgment in tort obtained on behalf of the minor recovers a net sum of $5,000 or more, the person responsible for the payment of the money shall make payment by check made to the order of ".........., (name of guardian), guardian under Title 13, Subtitle 2 of the Estates and Trusts Article, Annotated Code of Maryland, for .......... (name of minor), minor".

Statute of Limitations Against Your Underinsured Motorist Coverage

This issue covers those circumstances when you know the defendant insurance coverage will not be adequate to cover the extent of the injury you have sustained. This can happen when the defendant has no insurance or the insurance they have is not enough to compensate your damages. So the issue sometimes arises as to when do you have to file suit against your own insurance company or more accurately the insurance company covering the vehicle you were in at the time of the accident. Some people argue the time frame starts when you are injured. However in Maryland personal injury cases the suit against the UM carrier is a claim in breach of contract. As such according to Lane v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 321 Md. 165, 582 A.2d 501 (1990), the court determined the Statute of Limitations will not begin to run on a suit by the insured against the insurer for the breach of the contractual duty to indemnify until that breach literally occurs.

In the Lane case husband and wife were involved in an automobile accident that was the apparent fault of an uninsured motorist. They notified their insurance company of the accident shortly after it happened. On December 14, 1982, they brought suit against the uninsured motorist. The insurance company, however, made no effort to intervene. On April 17, 1986, over three years later, the Lanes sued their insurance company for uninsured motorist benefits. The insurance company filed a motion for summary judgment, asserting that the action was barred by the three-year Statute of Limitations. The Court of Appeals held the Statute of Limitations cannot begin running until there is an actual breach of the contract.

Maryland Medical Malpractice the Twenty Percent Rule

Maryland medical malpractice law places a limitation on who can testify in the cases to certify and/or testify to the standard of care to those medical providers who devote no more then 20% of their professional time to testifying in personal injury cases. Specifically, MD Code, Courts and Judicial Proceedings, § 3-2A-04 b(4)

A health care provider who attests in a certificate of a qualified expert or who testifies in relation to a proceeding before an arbitration panel or a court concerning compliance with or departure from standards of care may not devote annually more than 20 percent of the expert's professional activities to activities that directly involve testimony in personal injury claims.

The issue was addressed in in Witte v. Azarian where the court addressed what kind of activities “directly involve testimony in personal injury claims,” within the meaning of CJ section 3-2A-04(b)(4), so as to constitute the numerator in the 20 Percent Rule. The court reasoned that the operative statutory phrase at issue (“activities that directly involve testimony in personal injury claims”), was ambiguous, as its meaning could not be ascertained from its plain language, and that, in light of the legislative history of the Act as amended, including the amendments establishing the certificate of qualified expert requirement, that language had to be read narrowly, so as to avoid “creat[ing] an unreasonable impediment to the pursuit, or defense, of a common law right of action” for medical negligence. The Court determined a standard to determine the issue as follows:

A more reasonable approach, we think, is to regard the statute as including only (1) the time the doctor spends in, or traveling to or from, court or deposition for the purpose of testifying, waiting to testify, or observing events in preparation for testifying, (2) the time spent assisting an attorney or other member of a litigation team in developing or responding to interrogatories and other forms of discovery, (3) the time spent in reviewing notes and other materials, preparing reports, and conferring with attorneys, insurance adjusters, other members of a litigation team, the patient, or others after being informed that the doctor will likely be called upon to sign an affidavit or otherwise testify, and (4) the time spent on any similar activity that has a clear and direct relationship to testimony to be given by the doctor or the doctor's preparation to give testimony.

Litigation Themes

I have been reading and studying the use of themes in litigation. I thought some of what I have learned might be helpful to you. As I research on this issue I actually found a lot of material but very little concisely condensed material.

First themes are essential to success in litigation. I found a great deal of really useful information by ordering and listened to audio recording of trials in the area. I typically select the larger verdict trials. If you are interested in doing this also it is easy. You can order the audio and video (video in Baltimore City circuit court, with the consent of parties or counsel) for about $25-$45 per day of trial testimony. Interestingly I discovered every successful plaintiff's case is really just the advancement of themes. The successful attorneys have captured the simplest understanding of the human drama of their case and reduced it to a easily identifiable set of concise words. Those successful themes inherently carry the proposition that the defendant has made a careless choice and is now trying to side step responsibility for the harms by dodging responsibility or passing the buck. Like revenge these themes are best served cold and dispassionately. One author proposed developing a theme by first asking yourself what do you want from this case and then outlining the facts that support why you should have it. Others propose a similar formula which ask why should I win this case? All agree formation of the theme early in the case even before discovery is essential. Understanding the theme will be modified to changing facts as discovery progresses. Once trial is viewed as theme advancement evidential issues become some what secondary requirements. Obviously necessary but still secondary to theme advancement.

Wrongful Death In Maryland Personal Injury

Wrongful Death In Maryland Personal Injury

The wrongful death statute in Maryland can be found in the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article starting with section 3-901 through 3-904. Additionally Maryland Rule 15 -1001 must also be reviewed prior to initiating suit. The wrongful death statute defines the persons who are entitled to bring an action for wrongful death as a result of the loss of someone who has died. Specifically the claim may be brought by primary beneficiaries. Those persons are defined as a spouse, a parent, and the children of the deceased person. If there is no primary beneficiary then suit may be brought by secondary beneficiaries, who are defined as any person related to the deceased person by blood or marriage who was wholly dependent upon the deceased. A person is considered wholly dependent under the wrongful death statute when he or she existed financially entirely on the income of the deceased and has no other consequential source or means of being financially self-supporting other than income of the deceased. Even in circumstances where spouses are separated and near divorce the surviving spouse is still entitled to bring an action and obtain recovery. An illegitimate child may also qualify the primary beneficiary under the statute. Additional a viable unborn child at the time of the decedent's death may qualify as a primary beneficiary under the statute. However, a stepchild, stepparent or personal representative however is not permitted to be a claimant under the statute.

It is important to remember that primary beneficiaries who are not pursuing suit must still be named in the pleadings

Erbs Palsy

This is an injury that can be caused at birth and often times is the result of medical negligence. There are specific protocols doctors and mid wives are trained to follow when they encounter a birth emergency such as the baby becoming stuck due to the shoulders not passing through the birth canal. The various protocols include:

McRoberts Maneuver: Where the mother is repositioned and flexing knees to abdomen

Surapubic Pressure: Where push pressure is asserted over the mother's abdomen.

Wood's or Cork Screw Maneuver: Rotating the child's upper shoulder downward and the downward shoulder up ward.

C- Section: Which is extracting the baby through surgery.

There are four major types of injuries which occur to the nerves in the brachial plexus network which can result in some form of palsy:

1. an avulsion meaning the nerve is torn from the spine.

2. a rupture meaning the nerve is torn but not where it attaches to the spine.

3. a neuroma meaning the nerve has tried to heal but scar tissue has grown around the injury placing pressure on the injured nerve praxis. While the nerve has been damaged, it has not been torn and improvement should be seen within 3 months.

4. Neuropraxia is the mildest form of nerve injury. Neuropraxia, the most common form of Erb's Palsy is localized to the specific place where the injury occurs. It is a physiologic block of nerve conduction within an axon without any anatomical interruption. Many infants born with brachial plexus palsy have neuropraxia and sometimes recover within 4-6 weeks.

If you are not sure if negligence was involved in your baby's injury call my office. We will investigate the cause for you and provide those answers at no cost to you. 1-888-760-7339.

Medical Malpractice in Maryland. Those Cases Matter Too.

If you have been injured as a result of a doctor or hospital's careless treatment and you have been to the lawyers and each one tells you the damages do not justify filing suit call me before you give up the fight. A common opinion for many malpractice lawyers is that the case has to be worth seven figures to justify filing suit. I happen to disagree. I see many medical negligence issues each year where the damages are less then optimal but the case still has value beyond expenses. I am more then happy to give your case an initial evaluation or that final review after everyone has said no. Too frequently a blind eye is turned on those who deserve. This is done in favor of what many consider more prudent business decision making. Let my office be your last stop. Please feel free to call to discuss your medical malpractice case. 1-888-760-7339

Statute of Limitations in Maryland Personal Injury

You must be very very careful on issues involving the Statute of Limitations. Once your period of limitations has run out you will be forever barred from filing suit against the person(s) that harmed you. My first advise to you is when you are injured in an accident no matter what type accident, car accident, medical malpractice, slip and fall, not matter what, first call an attorney who practices personal injury law in Maryland. If for no other reason simply ask, what is the statue of limitations in my case. Oddly in the last week I have had two calls from people who have waited until one month before the limitations is about to expire on their cases now seeking an attorney. Let me explain some thing right off the start. First off every attorney will suspect something is wrong with this case when they get a call this close to limitations expiring. Secondly, it is a horrible risk to any attorney to try to investigate a case to determine who needs to be sued in such a short period of time before limitations will expire. Generally when an attorney gets this type call the suspicion is other attorney's have already reviewed the case and rejected it for some reason and now the potential client is still looking for an attorney to take the case and time is running out. Always contact an attorney when you are injured. You do not have to hire them just ask what is the period of limitations. Please feel free to call. I will review the case for you and answer your questions right over the phone 1-888-760-7339.

Bad Faith Failure to Settle in Maryland Personal Injury Cases

In the event you have damages that are in excess of defendant's liability coverage, setting aside the issues involving UM coverage for the moment, you can set up the potential for a bad faith claim against the defendant insurance carrier that might in the long run net you payment for the full extent of your client's harms. The Maryland personal injury case on point is Kremen v. Maryland Automobile Insurance Fund 363 Md. 663, 770 A.2d 170
Md.,2001. In this case defendant insurer had the chance to settle the case for policy limits however, refused to settle. The court determined the action for bad faith lies in tort and not in contract. In this case it was determined there was sufficient evidence in the record for the jury reasonably to have found that the defendant’s insurer did not fully investigate plaintiff's claimed head injuries. Because the jury was provided with evidence of the defendant insurers failure to investigate fully plaintiff's closed head injury claim and of plaintiff's willingness to settle unconditionally the underlying case for defendant's $20,000 policy limit, the trial court found that there was sufficient evidence before the jury to support its finding that defendant insurer acted in bad faith (negligently) when it refused to settle the case. The measure of damage was the difference between the policy limits and the amount of the judgment entered against the insured.

As a matter of practice when we conduct our initial client intake one of the first points of inquiry is UM/UIM coverage. Once our clients near completion of treatment we ball park value the case. When we feel we have an excess case we investigate defendant’s assets and upon confirmation of all damages forward a policy limits demand, if appropriate.

Maryland Personal Injury Discovery: Insured's Statements to Insurer

I noticed that defense counsel is fond of issuing a subpoena to my client's PIP carrier to get the PIP application. As such at my office we exercise proper caution in drafting the responses contained in the PIP application. So the question arises; does the blade cut both ways. I mean if the defnedant can get my client's PIP application, why can't I get the defendant's statements to his insurance company. The answer is maybe you can get the statements. The Maryland court has considered the issue in Cutchin v State of Maryland 143 Md App 81 (2002). In this case the court determined the statements in this matter were not prividged and were subject to discovery. However, as dicta the Court articulated a two factor test to determine if the defendant's communications to his insurer are coverd as prividged communications between attorney and client. The two facts are (1) whether the communication was predominately related to the insured's defense and (2) did the defendant have a reasonable expectation that his communications were confidential. I suggest it is a reasonable discovery question to ask for any and all statements made by the defendant to any and all persons including but not limited to his insurer.

Expert Disclosure in Maryland Personal Injury

What, if any, tolerance does the court have regarding expert disclosure as it related to late disclosure not of the actual expert him/herself, but rather their opinions or their reports. In Maryland a typical discovery interrogatory question will ask for the identification of expert witnesses and the basis and substance of their opinions. Additionally, the court's scheduling order will mirror this requirement and often provides a deadline for each party to disclose experts. So what happens when a party either does not fully comply with the discovery request or fails to disclose the expert opinions or provide a report to the other side. Maryland courts have addressed the issues.

Initially it is worth noting in Admiral Mortgage v. Cooper, 357 Md. 533, 545, 745 A.2d 1026 (2000), the Court of Special Appeals noted the appropriate sanction for a discovery or scheduling order violation is largely discretionary with the trial court. The Court qualified a “governing principle” and pointed out “the more draconian sanctions, of dismissing a claim or precluding the evidence necessary to support a claim, are normally reserved for persistent and deliberate violations that actually cause some prejudice, either to a party or to the court.” As such the scheduling order is not meant to function as a statute of limitations, and good faith substantial compliance with the scheduling order is ordinarily sufficient to forestay a case-ending sanction. See also Manzano v. Southern Maryland Hospital, 347 Md. 17, 29, 698 A.2d 531 (1997) (“dismissal of a claim ... is warranted only in cases of egregious misconduct”).

In the case of Kleban v. Eghrari-Sabet 174 Md.App. 60, 920 A.2d 606 Md.App.,2007 the court would not allow the plaintiff’s expert to testify to a particular opinion (ie future lost wages) since the opinion was not identified as a part of the opinions this expert would offer at trial. That makes sense if you fail to outline the opinion the expert is offered for then the expert can not testify to that opinion. Conversely in the matter of Food Lion v. McNeill 393 Md. 715, 904 A.2d 464 the court refused to sanction the non disclosing party when the aggrieved party waited until trial to raise their objection not as to the opinion expressed but rather to the disclosed factual basis for the opinion. The court determined the request for exclusion of the expert’s opinion at trial should have been raised as a discovery motion. In this particular case the non disclosing party identified the expert by name but did not set forth any opinions in response to discovery request. As such the aggrieved party created the harm they complained of by not pursuing the discovery failure.

In the matter of Helman v. Mendelson 138 Md.App. 29, 769 A.2d 1025 Md.App.,2001 the court would not permit expert testimony after multiple delays affecting production of expert opinions and an expert report. In this matter the expert’s report was produced only 2 days prior to a hearing on motion for summary judgment. The court found prejudice to the aggrieved party as the foundation for the decision. Conversely in the matter of Maddox v. Stone 174 Md.App. 489, 921 A.2d 912 Md.App.,2007. Trial court abused its discretion by excluding family's expert on ground that expert’s report was disclosed 34 days after deadline contained in scheduling order, in negligence action brought against electrical contractor by family injured in house fire, where expert’s identity was disclosed before deadline in scheduling order, contractor deposed expert well in advance of trial, another expert for family whose report was disclosed prior to scheduling order's deadline had died, family had not engaged in any willful or contemptuous behavior, and trial court did not consider whether any option other than exclusion was an appropriate response to the lack of strict compliance with the discovery deadlines in the scheduling order. The Court sited no prejudice to the other party. See also Lowery v. Smithsburg Emergency Medical Service 173 Md. App. 662, 920 A.2d 546 Md.App.,2007. Former employee's delay in filing report of expert two and one-half months after close of discovery and 12 days before trial was substantial, in action against former employer for defamation and intentional interference with economic relations, so as to support a finding that exclusion of the report was not an abuse of trial court's discretion; delay in obtaining the expert report did not allow appellees sufficient time to prepare their defense and was therefore prejudicial.

The court has outlined five factors to consider in determining whether to apply sanctions. Please see Lowery v. Smithsburg Emergency Medical Service 173 Md. App. 662, 920 A.2d 546 Md.App., 2007. In the exercise of its discretion when applying sanctions for discovery violations, a trial court must consider these five factors: whether the disclosure violation was technical or substantial, the timing of the ultimate disclosure, the reason, if any, for the violation, the degree of prejudice to the parties respectively offering and opposing the evidence, whether any resulting prejudice might be cured by a postponement and, if so, the overall desirability of a continuance.

You must disclose the expert opinions, (this is mandatory), however not necessarily the factual basis for the opinion (unless requested and compelled in discovery), and an expert report, if any, well in advance of creating prejudice to the other side. If you do not the court has the discretion to exclude your expert testimony if after applying the five factors the court determines there is prejudice to the other side.

Maryland Personal Injury Slip and Fall

As in any Maryland personal injury case the plaintiff must provide liability and damages. Liability in the premises liability case or slip and fall as we generically refer to them revolves around notice. The owner of the property must have a reason to know of the danger and then fail to correct the danger or warn the plaintiff of the danger provided the plaintiff could not discover the danger himself with the exercise of ordinary care. Also, depending upon how the plaintiff is categorized the duty owned by the owner changes. For example the duty owed to a social guest is different then the duty owed to a business invitee. I find the most pertinent questions in my interview with a potential client is a slip and fall is what made you fall, how did the danger get there if you know, and how long was it there before you arrived. This last question is generally answered by circumstantial evidence. I once had a slip and fall at a gas station. My client feel on oil left by a prior vehicle. How long was the oil there before she arrived was a major problem. I solved the problem with eye witnesses who testified they saw foot prints in the oil and tire tracks in the oil. Some of the foot print stains actually travelled from the oil spill right to the attendant's window where customers pay. We won the case. The owners will always argue we did not know of the danger. However, if the danger was there for a sufficiently long enough period of time or the owner's own conduct created the danger, then you have some thing to work with in terms of proving liability. Since these are always difficult cases on liability the damages have to be adequate to justify the work the attorney will invest in the case. If you have a slip and fall case and you need to bounce it off an attorney please feel free to call. I am more then happy to review the facts with you and give you my opinion.

Statute of Limitations and Notice Requirements in Maryland Injury Cases

In addition to the Statute of Limitations your Maryland personal injury case may also be controlled by a Notice requirement. I have outlined the various limitations periods and notice requirements on my web page. Please feel free to visit. And do be warned it is necessary to consult with an attorney on these very technical issues. If you miss a Limitations or a Notice requirement your case can be forever barred. Meaning you will not be able to collect any money in your case. It is also very important to take note of the proper persons to serve with the suit papers and the notice requirements. Again giving timely notice to the wrong persons can still create a bar to your recovery. If you are not sure of where you stand regarding these issues, please feel free to call my office.

Maryland Personal Injury Lawyer, Underinsured Settlement Procedures

In the event you intend on settling your case with the defendant insurer (liability carrier) and your case value exceeds the defendant's policy limits you can seek additional money on your client's behalf from the client's underinsured motorist coverage. However, there is a procedure that must be followed. Please review § 19-511. Uninsured motorist coverage--settlement procedures

(a) If an injured person receives a written offer from a motor vehicle insurance liability insurer or that insurer's authorized agent to settle a claim for bodily injury or death, and the amount of the settlement offer, in combination with any other settlements arising out of the same occurrence, would exhaust the bodily injury or death limits of the applicable liability insurance policies, bonds, and securities, the injured person shall send by certified mail, to any insurer that provides uninsured motorist coverage for the bodily injury or death, a copy of the liability insurer's written settlement offer.

(b) Within 60 days after receipt of the notice required under subsection (a) of this section, the uninsured motorist insurer shall send to the injured person:

(1) written consent to acceptance of the settlement offer and to the execution of releases; or

(2) written refusal to consent to acceptance of the settlement offer.

(c) Within 30 days after a refusal to consent to acceptance of a settlement offer under subsection (b)(2) of this section, the uninsured motorist insurer shall pay to the injured person the amount of the settlement offer.

(d)(1) Payment as described in subsection (c) of this section shall preserve the uninsured motorist insurer's subrogation rights against the liability insurer and its insured.

(2) Receipt by the injured person of the payment described in subsection (c) of this section shall constitute the assignment, up to the amount of the payment, of any recovery on behalf of the injured person that is subsequently paid from the applicable liability insurance policies, bonds, and securities.

(e) The injured person may accept the liability insurer's settlement offer and execute releases in favor of the liability insurer and its insured without prejudice to any claim the injured person may have against the uninsured motorist insurer:

(1) on receipt of written consent to acceptance of the settlement offer and to the execution of releases; or

(2) if the uninsured motorist insurer has not met the requirements of subsection (b) or subsection (c) of this section.

Accident In Baltimore, The Lane Change

Every personal injury lawyer in Maryland will tell you there are several types of cases you generally want to stay away from unless the damages justify the risk. The reason these are difficult cases is because the liability is sometimes difficult to prove. And as we all know, if you are frequent readers, the plaintiff has the burden to prove liability and damages. And so the red light/green light cases can end up being your word against mine. In which case the plaintiff looses since it is a tie. Likewise the lane change cases are a problem for much the same reason. Each driver will claim the other wrongly entered his lane. Often times in these cases you get little to no assistance in your proof from the property damage. Which I have found often is the evidence that does not lie and has its own story to tell. I have such a case pending in Baltimore City. I decided to take a chance on this one for several reasons. One I like the plaintiff and I believe her. The damages are not compelling. I believe the case will stay in district court, which in Baltimore is not always a blessing. However, I am impressed with the location of the vehicles post accident. My client’s vehicle once hit was forced into oncoming traffic and up over the medium. Also the plaintiff's property damage was passenger side more to front. In such an instance plaintiff’s visibility of the other vehicle was greater then defendant’s visibility. People do not purposefully run into other peoples cars. It is more probable the defendant did not see the plaintiff judging from the position of the vehicles immediately prior to impact.

Maryland Personal Injury The Damage Cap

Maryland has long ago placed a cap on the amount of non economic damages a person can receive in compensation for injury. Since its inception the cap has been the center of great debate initiated primarily by the plaintiff aggrieved by the harsh reduction of his/her judgment. Some argue the cap thwarts justice. Once the jury has spoken and entered a judgment shouldn't that judgment be honored? Others argue the cap is needed to contain cost to the general public. Ultimately the cap removes discretion from the fact finder and leaves litigants with an inflexible mathematical boundary. A viable alternative that better serves justice is a post judgment review of the excess award. Not every case should be sustained. I am sure not every case should be reduced. The Maryland Damage cap states in pertinent part:

in any action for damages for personal injury or wrongful death in which the cause of action arises on or after October 1, 1994, an award for noneconomic damages may not exceed $500,000.

(ii) The limitation on noneconomic damages provided under subparagraph (i) of this paragraph shall increase by $15,000 on October 1 of each year beginning on October 1, 1995. The increased amount shall apply to causes of action arising between October 1 of that year and September 30 of the following year, inclusive.

(3)(i) The limitation established under paragraph (2) of this subsection shall apply in a personal injury action to each direct victim of tortious conduct and all persons who claim injury by or through that victim.

(ii) In a wrongful death action in which there are two or more claimants or beneficiaries, an award for noneconomic damages may not exceed 150% of the limitation established under paragraph (2) of this subsection, regardless of the number of claimants or beneficiaries who share in the award.

Vicarious Personal Injury Liability in a Maryland

Maryland law says the general rule is "every automobile driver must exercise toward every other driver that duty of care which a person of ordinary prudence would exercise under similar circumstances". Baltimore Transit Co., v Prinz 215 Md 398 (1958). Makes sense if we intend to keep a sound order to society. Then everyone should act reasonably. If you act in a careless manner and you hurt someone then you are liable for the damages you have caused. So are there situations where someone else’s careless behavior makes you liable? Well in Maryland personal injury law the answer is yes. Negligent entrustment and respondeat superior cases provide examples. Negligent entrustment occurs when the owner knows or should know that the person he is entrusting his vehicle to is likely to use the vehicle in a manner involving risk of harm to others. For example lending your car to a person you know is intoxicated. Then the owner may be held liable Macky v Dorsey 104 Md. App. 250 (1995). Other wise the mere ownership of a vehicle does not impute liability Toscano v Spriggs 343 Md 320 (1996). And as far as respondeat superior is concerned this is when an employer is held liable for the careless acts of their employees provided the act was committed by their employee while acting in the scope of their employment. Oaks v Connors 339 Md 24 (1995).

Elements of a Complaint in Maryland Personal Injury Cases

A properly pleaded claim of negligence includes four elements: (1) that the defendant was under a duty to protect the plaintiff from injury, (2) that the defendant breached that duty, (3) that the plaintiff suffered actual injury or loss, and (4) that the loss or injury proximately resulted from the defendant's breach of the duty. Todd v. Mass Transit Admin., 373 Md. 149, 816 A.2d 930 (2003).
As such every complaint in an personal injury case in Maryland for negligence must state, all facts which are essential to the cause of action with a reasonable degree of certainty. It is necessary to inform the defendant of the acts or omissions on which his or her liability is based. In order to state a cause of action in negligence, the complaint should state:

1. a right on the part of the plaintiff,
2. a duty on the part of the defendant with respect to that right,
3. a breach of that duty by the defendant,
4. the plaintiff has suffered an injury as a result of the breach of duty
5. the amount of damages the plaintiff is seeking to recover.

Energy Crisis and Personal Injury In Maryland

The effects of the energy crisis are realized everywhere even in subtle manners. For example, in my practice I am finding more and more occasions where I am hired by multiple clients all from the same host vehicle which was involved in a car accident. The reason is car pooling as a result of efforts to save on gas cost. What issues does this raise for the Maryland personal injury lawyer? Aside from the benefits which are obvious. This generally means we are taking policy limits. But this situation gives rise to several very serious complications. For example, conflict of interest issues involving liability and settlements. Additionally, you can encounter insurance coverage issues and UM/UIM issues.

In the event of a liability conflicts you simply can not represent the driver. And if you have met the driver as an initial interview you may find yourself in a situation where you can not represent anyone in the case, absent a written consent.

As far as settlements, assuming liability is a non issue, in which case representing the driver is also fine, again as an attorney you will encounter a problem. For example let say you have five clients in your host vehicle. There is a 20/40 policy. How do you decide who gets what from the settlement with out adversely affecting the interest of any one single client over the interest of another. This is a serious situation as far as conflict of interest is concerned. The solution I have found is Consent to Representation executed by each client. The Consent tells each client of the exact conflict at issue as well as their right to seek independent counsel. As long as you as an attorney are confident your representation of any one client is not adverse to the interest of another client and this confidence is reasonable and each client is informed of the issues and consents, then you are able to represent each. Please feel free to call me to discuss if you as a Maryland personal injury lawyer are encountering the same problem.

Scheduling Orders

Maryland Courts have developed scheduling order to promote the efficient administration of the cases through the court process. Specifically Md Rule RULE 2-504. SCHEDULING ORDER
(a) Order Required.
(1) Unless otherwise ordered by the County Administrative Judge for one or more specified categories of actions, the court shall enter a scheduling order in every civil action, whether or not the court orders a scheduling conference pursuant to Rule 2-504.1.
(2) The County Administrative Judge shall prescribe the general format of scheduling orders to be entered pursuant to this Rule. A copy of the prescribed format shall be furnished to the Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals.
(3) Unless the court orders a scheduling conference pursuant to Rule 2-504.1, the scheduling order shall be entered as soon as practicable, but no later than 30 days after an answer is filed by any defendant. If the court orders a scheduling conference, the scheduling order shall be entered promptly after conclusion of the conference.
(b) Contents of Scheduling Order.
(1) Required. A scheduling order shall contain:
(A) an assignment of the action to an appropriate scheduling category of a differentiated case management system established pursuant to Rule 16-202;
(B) one or more dates by which each party shall identify each person whom the party expects to call as an expert witness at trial, including all information specified in Rule 2-402 (f) (1);
(C) one or more dates by which each party shall file the notice required by Rule 2-504.3 (b) concerning computer-generated evidence;
(D) a date by which all discovery must be completed;
(E) a date by which all dispositive motions must be filed, which shall be no earlier than 15 days after the date by which all discovery must be completed;
(F) a date by which any additional parties must be joined;
(G) a date by which amendments to the pleadings are allowed as of right; and
(H) any other matter resolved at a scheduling conference held pursuant to Rule 2-504.1.
(2) Permitted. A scheduling order may also contain:
(A) any limitations on discovery otherwise permitted under these rules, including reasonable limitations on the number of interrogatories, depositions, and other forms of discovery;
(B) the resolution of any disputes existing between the parties relating to discovery;
(C) a specific referral to or direction to pursue an available and appropriate form of alternative dispute resolution, including a requirement that individuals with authority to settle be present or readily available for consultation during the alternative dispute resolution proceeding, provided that the referral or direction conforms to the limitations of Rule 2-504.1 (e);
(D) an order designating or providing for the designation of a neutral expert to be called as the court's witness;
(E) in an action involving child custody or child access, an order appointing child's counsel in accordance with Rule 9-205.1;
(F) a further scheduling conference or pretrial conference date; and
(G) any other matter pertinent to the management of the action.
(c) Modification of Order. The scheduling order controls the subsequent course of the action but shall be modified by the court to prevent injustice.

A case on point Maddox v. Stone 174 Md.App. 489, 921 A.2d 912 Md.App.,2007.