Posted on July 24, 2008 in Personal Injury

A Maryland man was tragically killed yesterday when the motorcycle he was driving was struck head-on by a car that crossed a double yellow line in Carroll County, Maryland.The Baltimore Sun reports that the victim was flown to Maryland Shock Trauma Center in Baltimore and died shortly thereafter. The driver of the vehicle that crossed the double yellow line was 80 years old.

I have represented many seriously injured victims and fatalities from motorcycle accidents in Maryland. Motorcycle accident cases are often tragic because the injuries sustained by the cyclist are often exponentially worse due to the lack of protection. Fortunately Maryland requires motorcycle riders to wear a helmet, but often the head injuries-even with a helmet-are devastating.

As a lawyer resenting motorcyclist, I often hear from my clients that they are particularly careful when riding a motorcycle because of the limited protection. Unfortunately, in instances such as this when a negligent driver crosses the double yellow line, the accident is unavoidable. For more information on the nuances of motorcycle injury law in Maryland, please contact me for a free consultation.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on July 23, 2008 in Criminal Defense

An experienced Maryland Criminal Attorney must have a thorough understanding of the defense of coercion and duress which is also called a necessity defense. I represented a defendant in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County Maryland today in which I investigated a necessity defense but ultimately concluded that such a defense was not viable under the particular facts of this case. Before going into the facts of my case today, here is a synopsis of the coercion and duress or necessity defense.

It is a defense to all crimes other than the taking of a life of an innocent person that the defendant acted under coercion or duress. The most common defense of this type is self-defense or its cousin, defense of others. It also applies to situtions where a person is coerced into committing a crime by an imminent and impending threat of death or serious bodily injury if the act is not committed. There also must not have been an opportunity to escape. If there was a legitmate opportunity to escape that is not acted upon, then the defense is not available. This is essentially the situation that I was faced with in my case and why I was unable to use the duress and coercion or necessity defense.

My client is an 18 year old boy with no prior criminal record. He came to me charged with Armed Robbery, First Degree Assault, Use of A Handgun in the Commission of a Crime of Violence and several lesser included offenses. In appearance he is small and slight and looks more like a member of the chess club that a violent armed felon. One day several months ago he was called by his 28 year old brother who has a long criminal record that includes both drug charges and crimes of violence. The brother asked my client to come pick him up to take him somewhere and the client agreed. When he arrived at his brother’s house the brother got into the car and told him they had to pick up a few friends. They drove to another house where two other men got into the car, one with a shotgun and one with a handgun. Both of these men are in their late twenties and like my client’s brother, have long violent criminal records.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on July 23, 2008 in Medical Malpractice

A Pittsburgh jury has found that the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center at Shadyside was negligent in a patient’s death and awarded $2.5 million for wrongful death. The case alleged that a young man died after a brain abscess was not treated in time by the staff at the hospital. The jury actually issued a statement saying, "It is our belief that UPMC Shadyside’s policies, culture, and lack of competent supervision resulted in the death of Michael Rettger." The young man, who was an accountant, was in West Virginia in November 2003 to perform an audit of another hospital when he began vomiting and reporting a headache. The man then was admitted to that hospital, and a CT scan and MRI revealed a large, swelling mass in his brain. The man was transferred to UPMC Shadyside in order to be closer to home.

I have successfully handled a number of medical malpractice / medical negligence / medical error cases in Baltimore and other counties in Maryland, and in Washington, D.C., involving the failure of hospitals to timely diagnose and treat patients with brain and other conditions. Of course, one has to obtain the medical records and retain proper experts in these cases, such as neurosurgeons and radiologists, to determine what really happened. But what is also critical in these type of cases is to obtain the hospital’s written standards to determine how the hospital expected its people to act, and to then take the depositions of the people most involved with the care and treatment of the patient, to understand what they did and whether they complied with hospital policies.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on July 22, 2008 in Personal Injury

A Florida jury returned a verdict of $21.62 million in a wrongful death and survivor action where a 32 year old woman was rear-ended by another driver talking on her cell phone while driving. The force of the rear-end collision pushed the decedent’s car across the median strip and into oncoming traffic. She was killed when an SUV struck her vehicle head-on.

The decedent’s husband, individually and on behalf of his wife’s estate, and their two minor children sued the driver of the vehicle and the company that owned the driver’s car. The vehicle had been given to the driver’s husband for company business.

Incredibly, the defendants claimed that the rear-impact was minor and was not forceful enough to push the decedent’s vehicle across the median strip. The defendants argued that the decedent had accidentally accelerated after the impact and that the car that struck her when her vehicle was pushed into oncoming traffic failed to take appropriate action to avoid the collision. The defendant driver also maintained that she wasn’t talking on her cell phone at the time of the collision. The plaintiffs, however, subpoenaed the driver’s cell phone records, which indicated that she was talking on the phone with her husband at the precise time of the collision.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on July 22, 2008 in Personal Injury

Experienced Maryland Personal Injury Attorneys know the various ways to recover for injuries suffered if involved in an accident with a vehicle owned by a business or company. If a Maryland resident is injured when their vehicle is struck by a company or business vehicle driven by another person, there are several sources of recovery for their injuries, including the company’s insurance, the other driver’s insurance or their own insurance company. If a Maryland resident is driving a company vehicle that is involved in an accident, they potentially may recover from; 1) Workers’ Compensation, 2) the other driver’s insurance company or 3) their own insurance company.

Maryland Personal Injury Lawyers who have experience handling car accident case in Maryland involving commercial vehicles or vehicles owned by business or companies in Maryland know that there are several different avenues of recovery to help injured Maryland residents. If the car accident victim was struck or injured by a commercial vehicle, the experienced Maryland Personal Injury Lawyer https://www.silvermanthompson.com/lawyer-attorney-1300832.html will be able to advise their client on to receive compensation for their injuries from one of three different sources. Injured Maryland car accident victims can recover for their injuries from the following sources; 1) The other driver’s personal car insurance may be liable to pay for accident, 2) the company or business who owned the vehicle that struck the victim may be liable to pay, 3) a victim may potentially recover from their own insurance company for injuries suffered in the accident if the company or other driver are uninsured.
If a Maryland Accident Victim is involved in an accident while they are driving a vehicle owned by their employer there are three possible sources of recovery for their injuries. 1) If the victim was driving the company vehicle during the course and scope of their employment, they will entitled to collect Workers’ Compensation benefits for their injury. Collecting Workers’ Compensation benefits does preclude the victim from suing their employer, but does not preclude them from filing suit against the other driver. Essentially, an injured employee can double dip. 2) an injured victim may collect for their injuries from the insurance company of the driver that struck their work vehicle. 3) an injured victim may also collect from their own automobile insurance when driving a company vehicle that is struck by another driver, if that driver is uninsured.
If you or a loved one is involved in an accident involving a commercial vehicle or while driving a work vehicle please contact an the Maryland Accident Attorneys for a free consultation.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on July 22, 2008 in Driving Under the Influence

As a Maryland DUI/DWI Attorney I represent many individuals who receive a DUI or DWI and as a result have to deal with a suspension or revocation of their privilege to drive, although this is certainly not the only reason why the MVA would suspend one’s license.

When a person receives a DUI or DWI in Maryland, that person faces two possible suspensions of his or her driver’s license. The person will first face a suspension of his driver’s license, depending upon whether or not he took the breathalyzer. The defendant will also face suspension if he is ultimately convicted of the DUI or DWI when the matters proceeds to court. In addition to suspensions resulting from DWI’s and DUI’s a person may have his license suspended for several other reasons. By far the most frequent cause of a license suspension is that a person fails to appear in court for a minor traffic citation or fails to pay the fine after appearing. These so called "H" violations make up the vast majority of suspended license cases. A person may also have his privilege suspended or revoked due to an accumulation of points, for not paying child support, for receiving three moving violations within a a six month period, and for several other reasons.

Regardless of the reason for the suspension, in order to convict the defendant in court, the state must prove that the person was actually driving a motor vehicle (a person cannot be convicted for attempting to drive while suspended the way he or she can for attempting to drive while under the influence or impaired) on a public street or public access road or parking lot. The state must also show that person was affirmatively placed on notice by the state of the fact that the person’s license was suspended on the date of the offense. This element is the most fertile area for a Maryland DWI/DUI/Criminal Lawyer to search for a defense to these charges.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on July 21, 2008 in Criminal Defense

As an experienced and aggressive Maryland Criminal Attorney I regularly represent defendants in Baltimore County, Baltimore City, Anne Arundel County and throughout the State of Maryland who are charged with violating state laws criminalizing the manufacture of controlled dangerous substances (CDS), distribution of CDS or with possessing these substances in sufficient quantities and/or under certain circumstances which would lead to conclusion that the defendant possessed the substance with the intent to distribute it. The CDS’s mostly commonly involved in these cases in Maryland are cocaine, heroin and marijuana although an increasingly large percentage of these cases involve prescription pain killers such as Percocet, Oxycontin, Hydrocodone and others. A small percentage of cases involve so called "club drugs" such as MDNA also known as ecstasy, ketamine and others. Occasionally a Maryland criminal lawyer will run into a case involving PCP or methamphetamines.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on July 21, 2008 in Personal Injury

Personal injury settlements involving minors in Maryland are strictly governed by the legislature to protect the minor. Under Title 13, Section 402 of the Estates and Trusts Article, Annotated Code of Maryland “it is public policy of the state that any substantial sum of money paid to a minor because of a claim, action, or judgment in tort should be preserved for the benefit of the minor.”

That according to Title 13, Section 403 of the Estates and Trusts Article, Annotated Code of Maryland, “if a minor or any other person in whose name a claim in tort is made or judgment in tort obtained on behalf of a minor recovers a net sum of $5,000 or more, the person responsible for the payment of the money shall make payment by check made to the order of ‘(name of trustee), trustee under Title 13 of the Estates and Trusts Article, Annotated Code of Maryland, for (name of minor), minor'”.

Simply put, under Maryland law, the proceeds of a personal injury settlement for a minor are to be preserved for the minor until the minor turns eighteen.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on July 18, 2008 in Personal Injury

As an experienced Maryland trial lawyer who has been regularly representing victims and their families in fatal and catastrophic train accidents since 1995, there has been an important but gradual change in Maryland law over the past several decades. This change is in the area of private v. public railroad crossings and how Maryland and other jurisdictions view them as the classification affects victims of train accidents.

The duties owed to individuals at private crossings as compared to public crossings were first enunciated by a Maryland court in Annapolis & B. S. L. R. Co. v. Pumphrey, 72 Md. 82, 19 A. 8, 9 (1890). That Court stated:
There is no statute of this state which imposes upon the (railroad) the duty to give signals of the approach of its trains to a private road or farm crossing. Numerous cases in this state and elsewhere have held that a failure on the part of a railroad company to give proper warnings of the approach of its trains to a public highway or thorofare crossing is an act of culpable negligence; but we are aware of no decision which fixes upon a defendant the like consequence for omitting such warnings as to farm crossings. On the contrary, it has been determined twice by this court that no such obligation exists.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on July 18, 2008 in Personal Injury

As an experienced Maryland personal injury lawyer, it is frustrating to that Maryland still follows the arcane doctrine of contributory negligence. As one of four jurisdictions in the United States that follows this doctrine, contributory negligence in Maryland causes congestion in the Maryland trial courts and unfair results for deserving victims.

The doctrine of contributory negligence basically says that if a victim of personal injury is 1% at fault, then that party is 100% barred from recovery anything.

For example; a drunk driver runs a stop sign and smashes into a sober driver. The injured sober driver is paralyzed by the collision. If the case goes to trial and the defense attorney successfully argues that the sober driver is contributory negligent because he was exceeding the speed limit and failed to avoid the collision with the drunk driver, the drunk driver who ran the stop sign pays nothing!

Despite being unfair and unjust, the doctrine of contributory negligence also needlessly clogs the court system. Such is the case because in Maryland because nearly every defendant has a shot at wining as long as winning means you have to show the plaintiff was 1% at fault (even though the defendant is 99% at fault). Having contributory negligence clogs Maryland courtrooms with thousands of slip and fall type cases because in nearly every slip and fall case, the defense attorney can claim that the injured party should have "watched where he was going". For this reason and this reason alone, thousands of cases get filed in Maryland that otherwise should settle.

Continue Reading ››