Personal Injury Law

July 30, 2024

A New Law Ensures Safety and Accountability at Maryland’s Recreational Facilities

Every year, hundreds of injuries, and even deaths, occur at recreational facilities across Maryland and the East Coast. Whether it’s a thrilling day at a trampoline park, an adventurous climb at a rock wall gym, or a family outing to an amusement park, the risks of injury are real and significant. These accidents are often not mere flukes but the result of negligence on the part of the facility or its employees. Until recently, however, many consumers unknowingly signed away their right to seek compensation for such injuries. The recent passage of a new law in Maryland is set to change that, marking a significant step to protect consumers.

A Landmark Law for Consumer Protection

On May 16, 2024, Maryland Governor Wes Moore signed into law a bill passed by the Maryland General Assembly that prohibits waivers of liability for negligence at commercial recreational facilities. This new law represents a monumental shift in how businesses and consumers share risk at recreational activities. For years, facilities such as trampoline parks, rock climbing gyms, and other entertainment venues have required customers to sign pre-injury waivers as a condition of entry or participation. These waivers effectively stripped consumers of their right to seek legal recourse in the event of an injury caused by the facility’s negligence.

By declaring these waivers void and unenforceable, Maryland has taken a decisive stand to protect its citizens from unjust and potentially dangerous practices. Business owners often used these waivers as a shield to avoid accountability for the negligent actions of themselves or their employees. This law ensures that all recreational facilities are held to the same standard of care, fostering a safer environment for everyone involved.

January 20, 2021

Biased Expert Testimony in Virginia Personal Injury Claims

by Sidney Schupak, Esq.

In some Virginia personal injury lawsuits, testimony from experts may be necessary to lend further credibility to the argument that a party is making, but also to provide more context to the facts of a particular case. Sometimes, however, experts are retained repeatedly and may have previous, longstanding relationships with insurance companies or attorneys. The potential for bias for these experts can be high because of these relationships, and evidence of that bias may be crucial for a party to establish when arguing against or working to discredit the expert’s testimony.

In a recent Virginia Supreme Court opinion, the court considered whether evidence of an expert’s previous relationship with an insurance company and potential bias could be introduced in court. The plaintiff was driving when she was hit from behind by the defendant. Following the accident, the plaintiff experienced back, hip, and neck pain and increased depression and anxiety. The plaintiff sought medical care and physical therapy that cost more than $26,000 and sued the defendant seeking $150,000 in damages. The defendant’s representation retained an orthopedic surgeon to serve as a witness, who opined that the car accident only caused minor injuries to the plaintiff and that much of the pain she experienced was the result of conditions that were present before the accident. He also argued that her medical expenses should only be around $3000.

During depositions prior to trial, it was discovered that the surgeon had been retained by the defendant’s attorney more than 30 times over the last decade, but not by the defendant’s insurance company directly. However, the surgeon had done work with the insurance company before this case through the defendant’s attorney and had been compensated by the insurance company for his expert testimony. Before trial, the plaintiff moved to introduce evidence showing the surgeon’s previous relationship with the defendant’s attorney and her auto insurance company. The court allowed the plaintiff to introduce evidence that the surgeon had testified on behalf of the defendant’s attorney’s clients in the past but barred her from discussing his previous work for the defendant’s insurance company because there was no direct relationship between the surgeon and the company.

January 29, 2019

Spoliation of Evidence in Virginia Personal Injury Cases

by Sidney Schupak, Esq.

During the discovery phase of a Virginia personal injury case, each of the parties can request that certain evidence is provided by the opposing side. As a general rule, parties must provide evidence when it is requested and ordered by the court, even if the evidence at issue is harmful to the case of the party who possesses it.

Given this reality, it may be tempting for a party who is in possession of adverse evidence to alter or destroy it. The legal term for the destruction or alteration of evidence is spoliation. Of course, the spoliation of evidence is prohibited, and parties who are found to have spoliated may face serious sanctions. One common sanction is an instruction to the jury allowing the jurors to take an adverse inference from the missing evidence. A recent case discusses this issue in detail.

The Facts of the Case

According to the court’s opinion, the plaintiff was injured in a slip-and-fall accident while a resident in the defendant nursing home. Evidently, the plaintiff’s fall was caught on video, which the nursing home administration was able to view several times. However, the nursing home did not preserve the video, and eventually, it was recorded over.

January 14, 2019

Employer Liability in Virginia Motor Vehicle Accidents

by Sidney Schupak, Esq.

After a Virginia motor vehicle accident, those who were injured in the collision can pursue a claim for compensation against the parties whom they believe were responsible for causing the accident. In almost all cases, Virginia car accident lawsuits are filed against another motorist and are defended by the motorist’s insurance company. However, Virginia accident victims should not assume that the only liable party is the other driver; it may be that the driver’s employer is also responsible for any injuries.

Under the doctrine of respondeat superior, a Virginia accident victim can pursue a claim for compensation against a negligent motorist’s employer. To establish such a claim, a plaintiff must show that 1.) there was a “master and servant” relationship between the motorist and the employer, 2.) that the employee was acting within the scope of his employment at the time of the accident, and 3.) the employee was in the process of carrying out his employer’s business. A recent state appellate decision illustrates the type of scenario where employer liability may be appropriate.

The Facts of the Case

According to the court’s opinion, the plaintiff was injured while he was riding as a passenger in a pick-up truck that was being driven by his father. The accident was allegedly the plaintiff’s father’s fault and occurred while the two were driving to a family reunion. The truck that the plaintiff’s father was driving was provided by his employer, the defendant.

December 28, 2018

Court Discusses “Dead Man’s Statute” in Recent Virginia Car Accident Case

by Sidney Schupak, Esq.

Recently, a state appellate court issued an opinion in a Virginia car accident case discussing the state’s “dead man statute.” The dead man statute, contained in Code of Virginia section 8.01-397, provides guidance on how courts should handle cases where one party is incapacitated or has died since the events giving rise to the case.

The Facts of the Case

According to the court’s opinion, the plaintiff claimed he was injured when he was rear-ended by the defendant. The plaintiff filed a personal injury lawsuit against the defendant, but before the case reached trial the defendant died. The plaintiff’s case proceeded against the defendant’s estate.

Evidently, the defendant conceded liability for the accident, and the only issue for the jury to decide was whether the plaintiff was entitled to any damages and, if so, what amount. The plaintiff, who had been involved in several previous car accidents and had a lengthy history of pre-existing medical conditions, testified that the defendant was going at least 20 miles per hour at the time. The plaintiff sought $500,000 in damages, claiming that as a result of the accident she required an additional back surgery.

December 18, 2018

Court Affirms $3 Million Verdict in Recent Truck Accident Case, Illustrating Common Issues That Arise in Virginia Truck Accident Litigation

by Sidney Schupak, Esq.

Recently, a state appellate court issued an opinion in a personal injury case requiring the court to determine if a jury’s $3 million verdict in favor of the plaintiff was proper given the evidence presented at trial. After reviewing the evidence as well as the defendants’ specific claims, the court affirmed the judgment. The case is important to Virginia personal injury plaintiffs because it illustrates several issues that frequently arise in Virginia truck accident cases.

The Facts of the Case

According to the court’s opinion, the plaintiff was driving a van with four passengers inside. As the plaintiff approached a construction zone, he noticed that there was a large construction vehicle pulled off to the right side of the road. The plaintiff realized as he got closer that the vehicle was actually in his lane. Thus, the plaintiff crossed over the double-yellow line to overtake the vehicle. However, as the plaintiff was passing it, the vehicle made a sharp left turn, colliding with the plaintiff’s van. The plaintiff was seriously injured as a result of the accident and filed a personal injury lawsuit against the driver of the construction vehicle, as well as that driver’s employer.

After the accident, the plaintiff requested that the defendants preserve the construction vehicle, and the defendants agreed. However, when the plaintiff arrived to inspect the vehicle, parts of the vehicle had already been removed and were in the process of being repaired.

November 29, 2018

Landowner Determined Not to Be Liable for Accident Caused by Untrimmed Foliage

by Sidney Schupak, Esq.

Recently, a state appellate court issued a written opinion in a personal injury case discussing an interesting issue that may come up in a Virginia car accident case. The case presented the court with the opportunity to consider whether a landowner could be held liable for an accident that was allegedly caused by untrimmed trees on the landowner’s property obstructing motorists’ view of an adjacent intersection. Ultimately, the court rejected the plaintiff’s argument that the court should impose such a duty on landowners and dismissed the plaintiff’s case.

The Facts of the Case

According to the court’s written opinion, the defendant owned land adjacent to an intersection where the plaintiff and another motorist were involved in a car accident. The plaintiff died as a result of the injuries he sustained in the crash. The plaintiff’s estate filed a wrongful death lawsuit against the defendant landowner.

Evidently, a law enforcement official investigating the scene of the accident determined that neither of the motorists applied the brakes or attempted to avoid the collision. The investigator concluded that each of the motorist’s view of the intersection was obstructed by foliage that was on the defendant’s property.

November 20, 2018

Plaintiff Injured by Closing Elevator Doors Permitted to Proceed with Claim Against Condo Association

by Sidney Schupak, Esq.

Recently, a state appellate court issued an opinion in a personal injury case discussing a doctrine of law that is rarely used in Virginia personal injury cases, but it is important nonetheless. The case involves the application of a doctrine called res ipsa loquitor, which can be used to permit a jury to make an inference that a defendant was negligent despite a lack of evidence showing the defendant acted negligently.

The Res Ipsa Loquitor Doctrine

The term res ipsa loquitor is Latin for “the thing speaks for itself,” and refers to a legal doctrine that may apply in cases where there is no direct proof that a defendant was negligent, but that the plaintiff’s injuries are such that they would not likely have resulted absent the defendant’s negligence.

The classic example of the res ipsa loquitor doctrine is the plaintiff who injured after a box falls on him while he is walking alongside a factory. In such a situation, the plaintiff would have no way of knowing where the box came from, who it belonged to, and why it fell. Thus, if the plaintiff filed a claim against the factory, he may be able to proceed under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitor because boxes do not ordinarily fall from factory windows.

November 5, 2018

Hit-and-Run Car Accident Case Proceeds Towards Trial Solely on Circumstantial Evidence that the Defendant Was Driving

by Sidney Schupak, Esq.

Earlier this year, a state appellate court issued a written opinion in a personal injury case discussing whether the plaintiff’s claim against the defendant, which was based almost exclusively on circumstantial evidence, should be permitted to proceed towards trial. The case is important to Virginia personal injury plaintiffs because it illustrates the importance of circumstantial evidence and that circumstantial evidence can be just as convincing as direct evidence.

Direct Evidence vs. Circumstantial Evidence

Evidence can be broken down into two main categories: direct and circumstantial. Direct evidence tends to prove an assertion without any necessary inferences. For example, if an eyewitness sees a crime occur, the eyewitness’ testimony that the defendant committed the offense would be considered direct evidence.

Circumstantial evidence, on the other hand, requires at least one inference be made to prove an assertion. For example, fingerprints that are found at the scene of a crime would be circumstantial evidence that the defendant was at one time present at the crime scene and may have committed the crime. Both types of evidence can be equally persuasive, depending on the evidence itself, as well as the surrounding circumstances.

October 18, 2018

Court Discusses Employer Liability in Recent Distracted Driving Case

by Sidney Schupak, Esq.

Recently, a state appellate court issued a written opinion in a personal injury case discussing an important and frequently misunderstood issue that commonly arises in Virginia car accident cases. The case required the court determine whether a plaintiff’s claim against an employer could proceed towards trial despite direct evidence that the employee was not engaged in work-related activities during the accident.

Ultimately, the court concluded that a plaintiff must provide actual evidence to rebut direct evidence to survive a summary judgment challenge and merely questioning the credibility of the defendant’s witness is not sufficient to give rise to a disputed fact.

The Facts of the Case

According to the court’s recitation of the facts, the plaintiff was injured in a car accident that occurred when another motorist struck her vehicle. The other driver was on the phone at the time of the accident, speaking with a friend from work.