KramersLaw.com

Personal injury and insurance law attorneys share their expertise in Maryland accident lawsuits, trial litigation and other legal news.

With General Assembly Inaction, Pit Bulls Remain “Inherently Dangerous”

The Maryland General Assembly concluded its recent regular session without action on legislation to modify the Court of Appeals’ decision in Tracey v. Solesky holding that pit bulls are “inherently dangerous.”

More ...
Featured

Civil Liability of Disgraced Day Care Workers

Two day care workers recently pleaded guilty to criminal charges after forcing two of their toddler-aged students to engage in a fistfight.  Could they be held civilly liable for their actions?

More ...

CAUTION: Student Driver | CAUTION: Careless Driving Instructor

While with his driving instructor, a student driver is involved in an auto accident.  May the driving instructor be responsible?  In Maryland, the answer is found in the 1970 decision of Greenway v. Graft.

More ...

Buckle Up for Your Turkey Trot

Happy Thanksgiving!  And if you are traveling on the highway this holiday, be sure to buckle up.

More ...

A Full and Final Release of (Almost) All Claims

According to the Maryland Court of Special Appeals, an injured party’s execution of a Release of all claims may not bar a subsequent claim for underinsured motorist benefits against her own insurance company.

More ...

Assumption of the Risk and Contributory Negligence: Separate and Distinct Defenses in Personal Injury Actions

Where evidence exists to generate both defenses, a jury must have the opportunity on a verdict sheet to consider these separate and distinct defenses.

More ...

After 165 Years, 1% May No Longer Bar Claim

Presently, Maryland is one of only five “contributory negligence” states, meaning that in a negligence action, a plaintiff who was in any way negligent is barred from recovery, even when the plaintiff was only “1% negligent.”  That may soon change.

More ...

With an Injured Tot, a Release is Naught

Earlier this month, the Maryland Court of Special Appeals held that a parent may not legally bind his or her minor child to a pre-injury release of tort liability in favor of a commercial enterprise.

More ...

Relevance of Doctor's Credentials (or lack thereof) in Malpractice Action

According to a recent court decision, a doctor's medical credentials may be relevant when he's on the witness stand -- but not when he's been sued for malpractice?

More ...

Road Rage Takes the Stage ... in Court

Accidents happen.  And, when they do, a negligence case can help you recover for pain and suffering, medical bills and other “compensatory damages.”  But, what if the collision wasn’t exactly an “accident”?  Can you get more?


In a road rage case, where I intend to hurt you by deliberately slamming into the rear of your vehicle, you could get extra damages designed to punish the other driver for malicious conduct.  Such “punitive damages” are about as rare as road rage accidents.

But what if I accidentally struck you while pursuing another vehicle?  Even though you were not my intended victim, shouldn’t I be punished nonetheless?  Shouldn’t I get hit for more than “compensatory damages”?

Maybe.  But, according to a recent decision by the Maryland Court of Special Appeals, the plaintiff better have some pretty solid facts to back up these types of allegations.  In Hendrix v. Burns, the plaintiff’s Toyota Corolla was struck in the rear by a drunk driver’s Jeep Cherokee.  According to one witness, this intoxicated driver displayed conduct consistent with “road rage.”  Just prior to the collision, the witness saw his Jeep drive in front of another car, slam on his brakes so that the other driver had to do likewise, get out of the Jeep, walk angrily to that driver’s window and speed through a red light after that driver eluded him.

Although the Court concluded that the Jeep’s driver “was enraged at the [other] driver for some unknown or irrational reason,” this evidence wasn’t enough to prove that he intended to hit the other car or otherwise inflict bodily harm.  Without legally sufficient evidence of an intent to harm someone else, the plaintiff could not use these irrational actions in pursuing punitive damages.

Of course, the plaintiff did win an $85,000 negligence claim to cover her pain and suffering, medical bills and other “compensatory damages.”  But without more evidence of an intent to cause bodily harm to herself or to the other driver, she was denied a bonus on top of that.

More ...