Slip and Fall Maryland Personal Injury Lawyer

It is that time of the year again. When snow and ice are the reason for a person to slip and fall and be injured there is a potential for liability to the owner of the property. Where a injured party can show that a dangerous condition has been created by the owner such as when an owner has permitted water or ice to accumulate in a manner not apparent to the injured person and the injured person is forced to encounter the condition the owner may be liable. Additionally even if the owner of the property undertakes the effort to remove, but fails to correct or creates an artificial condition, the owner may be liable. In order for a property owner to be liable, the property owner must have had actual or constructive notice of the unsafe condition in sufficient time prior to the injury to have it corrected or to have warned the party that was injured. There are countless examples where persons have fallen on ice in parking lots of shopping centers where the owner has been held liable. Maryland courts have stated when the public is led to believe that the premises have been offered for this entry, the law is clear that the occupation assumes the duty of reasonable care. The court has further found that a land owner may be liable when it allows the snow removal service to pile snow at one end of a parking lot while the parking lot drains at the opposite end. In such an example the court has found that the owner knew that the water from the melted snow would flow across the parking lot to the drain and on cool evenings the water would freeze. This is a perfect example of when an owner has created the dangerous condition. If you a family member or friend has been injured in a slip and fall accident please feel free to call my office 1-888-760-7339.

Estatblishing permanent Injury in a Maryland Personal Injury Case

Before you can establish that the effects of an injury are permanent you first need to establish that the injury was caused by this accident at issue. Typically this is accomplished by the timing of the onset of the complaints of pain and for some people diagnostic test confirming injury. Once you have established this causal connection you will may need expert testimony to establish that the effect of the injury is not likely to change. The only exception to this requirement for expert testimony to establish permanency is when the injury is of such a nature that common knowledge is sufficient to justify its probable permanent nature. For example in Cluster v Upton, 165 Md. 566 (1933), the issue of permanent injury was submitted to the jury without expert testimony where the plaintiff's finger, fractured in the accident, was still crooked 11 months after the accident.

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.

Methods to Prove Facts in Maryland Personal Injury

I receive several calls each weeks from people who visit my web site. asking how they can prove their cases. What is evidence and what do they need to do. There are many ways to prove the facts necessary to establish your claim or your defense. Facts can be proven by eyewitnesses, who can be either or both friendly and/or adversarial/adverse witnesses. Facts may be proven through real and demonstrative evidence, tangible articles, photographs, models, maps, drawings, documents, or opinions of experts. Under certain circumstances facts may be established thru the opinions of non -experts and by the use of out of court statement. These out of court statements must qualify as hearsay exceptions. In some instances a fact may be admitted in pleadings or even in situations where an adverse party admits the fact in discovery by deposition testimony or admission or failure to deny in a request for admission under Maryland Rule 2-424. Facts may be proven by circumstantial evidence provided the evidence to establish the facts is not conjecture or speculation. The ability to see the relevant facts of a case coupled with the knowledge of how to secure the introduction of the facts into evidence is essential to proof of any case in court. Many attorney's create a formula for presentation. It consist of pre outlined time schedules for issuing subpoenas, securing witnesses under subpoena, issuance of discovery, seeking stipulations and identifying and securing expert witness testimony.

Maryland Personal Injury Offsets to Underinsured Coverage by Workers Compensation Benefits Received.

In a Maryland personal injury case, there is a some what complicated situation that exist when multiple policies of insurance are all at play in the plaintiff's recovery. An interesting case was recently decided in the matter of Blackburn v Erie involving under insured coverage and workers compemsation insurance. This situation involves a fairly complicated mess of who gets what from the insurance coverage and who is entitled to what as off sets to avoid a wind fall recovery to the plaintiff. The first part of the equation is easy. When the under insured coverage is greater then the liability coverage the under insured coverage must pay the deficient. Of course this assumes a policy limits offer. It becomes more interesting and perhaps more complex when you throw in a workers compensation policy. You encounter this situation when a worker is injured in car accident for example. In this case when the workers compensation carrier has paid benefits the under insured carrier wants an off set to their coverage equal to the benefit received by the plaintiff. As such no wind fall by coverage duplication. Normally this argument arises when the workers compensation carrier has reduced their lien by some figure. In this case the under insured carrier says well then reduce what we owe to plaintiff by the amount of the reduction in the workers compensation lien. And guess what the courts in Maryland agree with the under insured motorist on this point.

Underinsured personal injury issues in Maryland accident cases

In Maryland every driver is required to carry automobile liability insurance. However the law only requires a 20/40 policy. As such you can end up with a situation where your personal injury claim exceeds the value of the defendant's liability policy. Assuming you do not have adequate under insured motorist coverage yourself, then what are the prudent steps to follow to verify there is no other source of coverage for your personal injuries after the defendant insurer offers policy limits. I recommend you secure an affidavit from the defendant. This can be a bit tricky since you will need to communicate through the defendant's insurance company. However it is necessary in the serious accident cases. The affidavit should attest to no agency, and no insurance from business, household or any and all other sources. In the event you have reason to believe the defendant has personal assets, sometimes unlikely when there is only a 20/40 policy, however, not impossible, then I suggest an asset check. The asset checks are fairly limited in my opinion, but can find real property, which often times have value. If you have any questions on this issue please feel free to call me. I am a Maryland personal injury lawyer.