Posted on September 19, 2008 in Victim's Rights

The Baltimore City Board of Estimates approved two settlements in two cases against City Police Officers stemming from police brutality. In one case, the City approved at $320,000.00 Settlement for four victims and in the second, approved a $75,000.00 settlement on behalf on one victim.

In May, a Baltimore City Jury awarded 4 men $1.85 million dollars based on misconduct on the part of a Baltimore City Police Officer. Those men claimed that they were harrassed while playing basketball in Patterson Park. They claim the officer used excessive force and arrested them in a show of force. Their claim was settled for $325,000.00. In a second case, a baltimore city resident was the victim of police brutality when he was struck in the face after cursing at an officer. He suffered a fracture to the bone around his eye as a result of the violent actions of the police officers. Experienced Maryland Accident Attorneys https://www.silvermanthompson.com/lawyer-attorney-1300832.html can help recover damages for the vicitms of police brutality. If you or someone you know has been injured by a police officer please contact the best in Maryland Personal Injury https://www.silvermanthompson.com/lawyer-attorney-1300832.html.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on September 19, 2008 in Driving Under the Influence

Maryland DUI/DWI Attorney I was recently retained to represent a person who is charged with Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol, Driving While Impaired, Negligent Driving and Failure to Control Speed to Avoid a Collision. The client was involved in a serious single car accident while driving home from a night out at the bars. He lost control of his car, went off the road and slammed into a telephone pole. He was seriously injured with several broken bones and was transported to shock trauma.

In cases involving motor vehicle accidents in which the suspected drunk driver is injured badly enough to require hospitalization, there is obviously not an opportunity for the investigating officer to request that the suspected drunk driver perform standardized field sobriety tests. In these cases the officer will typically speak to the driver and develop suspicion that the driver is impaired by alcohol based upon his observations. The officer will look for the smell of alcohol, blood shot eyes, slurred speech and other clues that the person is under the influence. If that suspicion is developed the officer will respond to the hospital and request that the driver submit to a test of his blood. The person my refuse to consent unless the accident caused death or life threatening injury, in which case he may be compelled to submit to a blood test.

If the person does consent the driver’s blood will be drawn by a nurse. The blood is packaged in a blood kit and taken to the State Laboratory to be analyzed by a chemist using procedures developed by the State Toxicologist on equipment that is monitored and tested regularly to insure accurate results. If the test reveals the presence of alcohol it can be admitted into evidence in trial and will carry with it legal presumptions depending upon the blood alcohol level. The evidence can also be introduce without the presence of the chemist who performed the test or anyone else in the chain of custody unless the defendant notifies the State in writing that the presence of the Chemist and all others in the chain of custody is demanded. If the blood alcohol level (BAC) is .08 or greater, this alone constitutes per se evidence that the person was under the influence of alcohol. If the BAC is .07 the State is entitled to a legal presumption that the defendant was impaired. If the BAC is less than .07 but greater than .05, there is no presumption and if the BAC is .05 or lower, the driver is presumed to not be impaired or under the influence of alcohol.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on September 16, 2008 in Personal Injury

Each year, more than forty percent of the total number of traffic fatalities are alcohol related. In this country, nearly 17,000 thousand people are killed on an annual basis in accidents caused by drunk drivers.

Sadly, notwithstanding these horrific statistics, Maryland law does not permit a cause of action against a bar owner, restaurant, homeowner or other individual or entity responsible for negligently serving alcohol to individuals who later get behind the wheel of a car and cause serious, and oftentimes catastrophic, injury to others. See Veytsman v. New York Palace, Inc., 170 Md.App. 104, 122 n.11 (2006). Such a claim is known as tavern liability or "dram shop" liability. In fact, Maryland is one of only three states that do not permit such lawsuits. Maryland law also does not allow an injured victim to recover punitive damages in automobile accident cases, even in instances where the driver that caused the injury has consumed excessive quantities of alcohol or other mind-altering drugs. See Komornik v. Sparks, 331 Md. 720 (1993).

A plaintiff’s personal injury lawyer practicing in Maryland should be mindful of the fact that each of the jurisdictions that border Maryland (including the District of Columbia) has adopted dram shop liability. It may be particularly important to consider this fact in instances where the at-fault driver has inadequate insurance coverage. When reviewing a case, an attorney should consider whether a drink driver became intoxicated at an establishment located beyond Maryland’s borders and perform the appropriate choice of law analysis. For example, in such instances, it may be appropriate to file a dram shop claim against the restaurant or bar that over-served alcohol to its patron in that entity’s home state, instead of filing a claim in Maryland. If a lawsuit that potentially presents a dram shop liability claim is hastily filed in Maryland, and the crash occurred in Maryland, Maryland law will most likely apply. If, on the other hand, a tavern owner in the District of Columbia negligently serves alcohol to a patron who later causes an accident in Maryland, it may be possible to hold the tavern owner responsible for the injuries by filing suit in the Superior Court for the District of Columbia. Filing suit in the District of Columbia may be particularly advantageous for an additional reason: there is no cap on non-economic (i.e., pain and suffering) damages like there is in Maryland.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on September 16, 2008 in Driving Under the Influence

Maryland DUI/DWI Attorney. I blogged several months ago about a Maryland DUI Case that I handled in the District Court for Anne Arundel County in which my client claimed to have performed the field sobriety tests far better than was indicated by the officer in the Statement of Charges. In that case I subpoenaed the video tape from the Maryland State Police Department and it turned out that my client was correct. The officer had exaggerated or outright fabricated poor performance on the field sobriety tests. I introduced the video into evidence at his trial and he was found not guilty.

Today I had a similar case in the District Court for Baltimore City. My client had the misfortune of passing a late model Chevy Malibu at approximately 1:00 AM on Interstate 95 N. just South of the Harbor Tunnel. About the time he pulled even with the Malibu (doing approximately 85MPH) he realized that it was an undercover Maryland Transportation Authority Police car. He was then pulled over and ultimately arrested for DUI, speeding and negligent driving.

Like my client last month, he swore that although he had had a few beers, he was not intoxicated and had not performed poorly on the standardized field sobriety tests. Again I ordered the tape of the stop, which was actually one of the clearest videos that I have seen but had no audio. When I compared the officer’s observations of my client’s performance on the filed sobriety tests with the video tape I was astounded at the discrepancies between the two. The officer said that he stumbled as he exited the car and had to hold onto the car for balance. The video showed him to walk to the back of the car without the slightest bobble. The officer said that while speaking to him he swayed noticeably. Again, the video showed him standing very steadily for several minutes while the officer questioned him. On the walk and turn test the officer said that he missed heal to toe, stepped off the line and did an improper turn. The video confirmed that on one step he stepped slightly to the left of the imaginary line and that he did an improper turn but he did not miss heal to toe on any of the steps. There were several other disrepancies as well.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on September 15, 2008 in Medical Malpractice

A Michigan husband and wife have been awarded almost $1.2 million by a jury in a medical malpractice lawsuit filed against a local doctor. The jury decided late last week after a two-day trial that the doctor was negligent regarding hernia surgery he performed in June, 2003. During the procedure, the man’s small bowel was nicked but the injury was not repaired at the time, causing him to have a septic reaction that included an long hospital stay. As part of the treatment for the nicked bowel, the man incurred several hundred thousand dollars of medical bills. The surgeon denied any negligence, saying that the patient knew of and appreciated risks and hazards involved in the medical treatment. The man’s wife was awarded $50,544 for being deprived the comfort, companionship, society, and services of her husband.

I have successfully handled a number of medical negligence / medical error cases in Baltimore and other counties in Maryland, and the District of Columbia, involving surgical malpractice. In this case, the malpractice probably was not causing the injury to the bowel, as that can happen during abdominal surgery. The problem here was the failure to timely diagnose (recognize) and treat the injury once it occurred. Before finishing up the hernia surgery, the surgeon should have checked to make sure that there was no unintended injury to organs including the bowel, found the injury and then repaired it. By not timely recognizing and repairing it, the man developed a severe abdominal infection, which progressed to sepsis, which is when the infection spreads through the blood to the rest of the body. Once the patient came out of surgery and exhibited signs and symptoms of an infection – usually abdominal pain, swelling, bloating, hardness of the abdomen – surgeon should returned the patient to surgery as soon as possible to stop the leak, wash out the abdomen and start the patient on antibiotics. These cases are tragic b/c someone goes in for a routine procedure and should be back on their feet in a few days, but ends up a long hospitalization, extensive medical care and problems that can last a lifetime.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on September 12, 2008 in Driving Under the Influence

Maryland DUI/DWI Attorney. In many Maryland Driving Under the Influence (DUI), Driving While Impaired (DWI) cases the issue of a person’s Miranda Rights, that is when or if the rights were read, is central to the outcome of the case. In almost every DUI/DWI case, including one that I had this week in Baltimore County Maryland, the person makes incriminating statements throughout the arrest and booking process. In my initial meetings with both DUI/DWI clients as well as clients charged with more serious criminal cases, the issue of Miranda is very frequently raised by the clients. It is also an subject about which nearly everyone is misinformed about when and under what circumstances the police are required to read a person their Miranda Rights.

So, when and under what circumstances are the police required to read a person their Miranda rights? Most people wrongly believe that as soon as a person is placed under arrest, which they almost invariably define as the point at which they are handcuffed, the police are required to read them thier Miranda Rights. Although this is the common procedure on television, it is simply not how it is done in the real world. The police are only required to read a person their Miranda Rights in the context of a custodial interrogation. That means that the person must both be under arrest (or at least in custody) AND be under interrogation by the police. A common question that I get from my clients in DUI/DWI cases is why are the State is allowed to use incriminating statements that they made to the police prior being read their rights.

The typical situation is that a person is pulled over by the police. The officer smells alcohol and asks the person to step out of the car. In response to questioning or interrogation, the person admits that he or she was coming from a bar and had consumed 5 drinks while they were there. My clients frequently believe that their statements should be suppressed because the officer failed to read them their rights prior to asking those questions. Unfortunately the statements will be admissible because, although the person was under interrogation at the point when they made the incriminating statement, he or she was not in custody. The statements were made to the officer while he was investigating to determine whether or not he had probable cause to arrest the person for Driving Under the Influence or Driving While Impaired. As I said, Miranda is only implicated when a person is BOTH in custody and being interrogated.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on September 09, 2008 in Personal Injury

Many individual automobile insurance policies do not provide adequate coverage for catastrophically injured victims. As a result, a product liability case against the manufacturer of the automobile may need to be explored. Such cases can be extremely complicated and expensive to prosecute effectively. As such, it is imperative to consult a trial attorney with significant experience handling such cases.

In addition to a simple "negligence" theory, Maryland law recognizes the "crashworthiness doctrine" and doctrine of "strict liability." A claim may also be pursued under Maryland’s Consumer Protection Act in appropriate circumstances. Pursuing such avenues may be the only way to obtain full compensation for the catastrophically injured client. Therefore, at the beginning of a case, counsel should take affirmative steps to determine whether a product liability theory of recovery should be considered. At a minimum, counsel should take steps to secure the vehicles involved in an accident and send a "spoliation" letter to any parties involved in the accident to preserve evidence for later inspection.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on September 09, 2008 in Personal Injury

Maryland is a major transportation corridor for trucking and other interstate travel with Interstate 95 running from North/South and Interstate 70 running East/West. As such, accidents involving tractor trailers and other large motor carriers oftentimes occur on Maryland’s frequently traveled roadways. In many of these cases, the tractor trailer is equipped with a "black box" containing critical information, such as average speeds of travel, top speeds, braking information for "hard stops" or other valuable information just prior to the point of impact. It may also contain information regarding the number of hours the truck was in operation; information that can be compared with the log books the driver and trucking company are required to keep. The black box can be a gold mine of information. The information contained in the black box can be critical to proving liability not just for the negligent truck driver, but for the company that employs him or her. This information can be used to show that a trucking company should have known there were problems with a particular driver.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on September 09, 2008 in Personal Injury

An Iowa jury recently awarded a woman $1.5 Million Dollars in a lawsuit she filed against the man who infected her with HPV, a sexually transmitted disease that causes genital warts. Karly Rossiter filed suit against Alan Evans claiming he told her he was free of sexually transmitted diseases in order to coerce her into having unprotected sex with him, when in fact he was carrying the human papilloma virus which causes genital warts.

Under Maryland law, a person who contracts a sexually transmitted disease from an infected partner who neglects to tell the victim they carry the disease is entitled to monetary damages. An experienced Maryland Personal Injury Lawyer, can Maryland residents who were infected with an STD, recover monetary damages from the person who infected them if they knowingly carried the virus yet failed to disclose it to the victim. Maryland allows for one to recover damages under several causes of action.
If you or someone you know are infected with an STD (sexually transmitted disease) and contracted this disease through unprotected sex with a partner who failed to tell you their status, you may be entitled to monetary damages.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on September 04, 2008 in Criminal Defense

A Maryland Lawyer Referral Service refers many cases to silvermanthompson.com. As a Maryland Criminal Attorney or Maryland Criminal Lawyer I regularly handle cases involving allegations of both sexual child abuse and physical child abuse. In most physical child abuse cases, the issue of the parental discipline privilege is central to the defense. I had a case last week in Baltimore County in which my client was charged with child abuse as well as misdemeanor assault but before I get to that particular case I think an overview of the law on child abuse as well as the parent discipline privilege will be helpful.

The Child Abuse Section of Maryland Criminal Code was last Amended in 2002. In this Amendment the Legislature separated child abuse into two degrees, first and second degree. First degree child abuse states that a parent or any other person with permanent or temporary custody of a child may not cause the death or "severe physical injury" of a child. Severe physical injury is defined by the Code to mean brain injury or bleeding within the skull, starvation, or physical injury that creates a substantial risk of death or causes permanent or protracted serious disfigurement or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ. First degree child abuse is a felony and any person convicted under this section is subject to imprisonment of up to 25 years.

Second degree child abuse is far more vague in its definition of abuse than is first degree. In fact, it does not contain a definition. It simply says that a parent or any other person with permanent or temporary custody of a child may not cause abuse to a minor. However, in 1973 when the legislature first defined abuse they made clear that in order to violate the statute, the parent or other person must cause some physical injury. Second degree child abuse is also a felony carrying up to 15 years in prison.

Continue Reading ››