Lost Wages and Future Loss of Income as Damages in Maryland Personal Injury

I receive several communications each week either by telephone calls or e-mails from people inquiring about the difference between lost wage claims and loss of future earnings arising out of injury in a Maryland personal injury case.

Lost wages from the date of the accident to the date of trial or to the date that you return to work, even if in some modified capacity, represent your claim for lost wages.

Future loss earnings represents the lost income you can expect from the date of trial forward into your future. Proof of future loss earnings typically requires a doctor who is familiar with your work requirements and your physical limitations as a result of your injury caused by the accident to testify within a reasonable degree of medical probability that you cannot return back to your prior employment. Coupled with that you will need a vocational rehabilitation expert, or someone of like credentials, to tell us what your post accident physical capabilities are and what job markets exist for people with your capabilities. Finally, you will need an economist to calculate the total amount of your future loss earnings. They will then have to reduce those future loss earnings to a present value. The only other piece of evidence you will need to prove future loss earnings will be the work life expectancy calculations which will be provided by the economist.

If you have any questions on these issues or any other issues affecting Maryland personal injury please feel free to call me at 1-888-760-7339.

Maryland Products Liability Lawyer

In a typical product liability suit one who designs, manufacturers or sells any product in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the user or consumer is subject to liability for physical harm caused to the user or consumer. The liability claim can be grounded in strict liability and also negligence. An issue sometimes arises in situations where the defective condition causes injury not to the user or consumer rather to a bystander. In the case of Valk Mfg. Co. v. Rangaswamy 74 Md. App. 304 (1987) the Court of Special Appeals addressed strict liability asserted by a bystander, plaintiff. In this case the plaintiff was killed in a car accident. The plaintiff's counsel argued his client's death could have been avoided had the arms of a snow bucket assembled to the front of a truck been removed prior to the impact. Testimony indicated the assembly was not easily removable as design. As such, the workers who had completed all of their snow removing responsibilities failed to remove the fixture and subsequently crashed into the plaintiffs vehicle. Unfortunately the fixtures projecting forward from the front of the vehicle pierced through the plaintiffs passenger side window making contact with this person and causing his death. The plaintiffs successfully argued that the projecting arms enhanced the injury and could have been removed with little effort had the assembly been properly designed. In fact the plaintiff produced an expert to testify that the fix to the design was as simple as a quick disconnect hose. The importance to the plaintiff's case in proceeding on strict liability was the elimination of the defendants claim to contributory negligence. You see in a strict liability claim the only defense a defendant can raise is assumption of risk.