Baltimore Injury Lawyer Blog

The way people think and speak about time is a recurring issue in personal injury lawsuits, particularly those involving auto and truck accidents. All drivers are constantly required to judge speed and distance simply to get where they are going. This leads to the perception that drivers and witnesses are able to accurately estimate time, speed and distance. However, scientific studies by professional accident reconstructionists confirm that eyewitnesses are most often wrong when they try to estimate these factors.

Often, people speak in a very non-literal way about time. A minute is seen as a very short period of time by most people. A minute is about 1/1400th of a day. When a witness says something took “about a minute” they very rarely mean that it took 60 seconds. More frequently, they mean “not very long.”

This can be extremely important in intersection cases. It may arise in the context of how long the plaintiff or defendant had to see and react to oncoming traffic. Or where a vehicle was when a light changed, or how long it took for a vehicle to travel from point A to point B.

Witnesses never realize that when they are asked to estimate time, it is rarely simply because the questioner wants to know about how long something took. You see, time/speed/distance is really just a three-sided math problem. If you know any two elements, finding the third is a simple calculation.

Continue reading "Don't Let Time, Speed or Distance Sink Your Case" »

Yesterday I received an order from the Court of Appeals of Maryland scheduling oral argument in two cases I am handling. Really, it is one argument, but relates to two cases that have been consolidated on appeal.

The first case is a case my colleague Rod Gaston had for trial in the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County. The defendants named a neurosurgeon as an expert witness. Rod obtained an order compelling him to produce certain financial records in an effort to find out how much he is paid for testifying in general, and for the defense attorneys, defense law firms and insurance companies involved in the case specifically. The doctor has appealed that order.

The second case is a truck accident case I am handling in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County. That case has been stayed in the trial court pending the outcome of the appeal. There, the trial court entered a similar order, only with a strong confidentiality provision protecting the privacy of the records to be produced. The doctor has appealed that order as well.

It's the same doctor in both cases. The evidence is clear that he is a "professional witness." We also have him as a retained defense medical expert in a few other cases we have in the office. He has been ordered to produce financial information in other cases as well, and I understand more appeals will be forthcoming. It appears to be the doctor's position that all of the judges in various counties across Maryland who have ordered him to produce this material are wrong, and have abused their judicial discretion.

The issue before the Court of Appeals is whether the trial courts' orders were an abuse of discretion under the Maryland Rules and the relevant case law, including Wrobleski v. DeLara.

These cases may have broad implications for how expert witness bias discovery is conducted in Maryland auto and truck accident cases. Miller & Zois believe that juries are entitled to know if the professional witnesses put before them have a financial interest in testifying, or in testifying for any particular lawyers, firms or insurance companies. And what the extent of that financial interest is.

The Court's opinion in these cases is likely to significantly affect plaintiffs' lawyers' ability to find evidence of bias so that juries have the facts they need to determine whether they should believe the witnesses put before them.

So if you are interested, circle 1/12 on your calendar. The argument will be broadcast live on the web from the Maryland Judiciary website.

Last week, I argued an appeal in a truck accident case. I was in the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, which is our state's intermediate appellate court. My case was fourth in line on the day's docket. That meant I got to (was forced to) sit through the argument on the cases ahead of mine.

The other arguments ran the gamut from abominable to excellent, and featured a range of attorneys from young lawyers to experienced appellate advocates.

One thing I saw some of these other lawyers do was to address the questioning judges by name. For example, "Great question, Judge Hollander." Actually, my example violates two rules of appellate argument. Never tell a judge they asked a great question. Presumably, they also thought it was a good question, or they would have remained silent.

But my real beef here is that I think it is never appropriate to call a judge by name in a courtroom. My practice is to refer to all members of the court as "Your Honor" if we are in a setting where I am being a lawyer and they are being a judge. To do otherwise seems disrespectful, and could be taken as implying a personal relationship that does not exist.

When I ran into a member of my appellate panel in the lobby prior to the start to the docket, I found "Good morning, Judge Pierson" totally appropriate. When I am in a courtroom and he is on the bench, that is "Good morning, Your Honor.

I happen to know the most recent past clerk for one on the judges on my panel. Afterwards I emailed her about this issue. She actually said she even called her judge "Your Honor" in chambers.

Maybe I am wrong about this, but I don't think so. At a minimum, sticking with the formal "Your Honor" is never going to get me in trouble. And it is also great if you happen to be bad with names.

You know why? Because reform is supposed to make something better, not worse. I am stealing the phrase "tort reform" back from those who would destroy injury victims' rights for the sake of simple economic expediency. So here are John Bratt's proposals for Maryland tort reform.

First, do away with the antiquated "contributory negligence" standard. In Maryland, if you are even a teensy, eensy bit negligent, you can never make a recovery in tort. "But wait", exclaims a chorus of the uninformed, "that's not fair- if you are negligent it is your own fault." Oh really? What about a pedestrian who looks left, but not right and then a drunk driver runs him down? His fault, huh? Good thing Donte Stallworth ran that guy over in Florida, not Maryland. In our state, there is a good chance that guy loses his case against the drunk driver. Maryland should abandon this unfair standard and move to a contributory negligence system such as those in use in 44 other states.

Second, our legislature should appeal the "actual malice" standard to recover punitive damages. What this means is that in order to recover ounitive damages, you must prove that whatever the defendant did was not only intentional, but done out of specific ill will toward the injured person. There is a great illustration in the news right now. A 20 year old college student, a pedestrian, was run down and killed by a repeat drunk driver, who then left the scene. It turns out, he was captured on various cameras driving erratically throughout the city before the fatal collision. That poor young woman's family will not be able to recover punitive damages. Is that fair? This is a case where allowing punitive damages is not only morally right, but would provide a benefit to society by showing that this conduct will not be tolerated n the community.

Finally, the big one. I would abolish all arbitrary damages caps. Damages caps are unfair, un-American, and deprive citizens of their right to have their damages determined by a jury. Juries are kind of a big deal in America. It's in the Constitution and all. Juries decide whether people live or die, go to prison or go free. But when it comes to some doctor or insurance company's pocketbook, we don't trust them anymore. That's stupid. The whole point of our system of government is that it puts the ultimate power in the hands of the people. Arbitrary damages caps take that power away from our juries.

Laura Zois and I had a trial this summer where we were representing a young woman whose right leg was crushed by a gas tanker that ran a red light. Our Baltimore City jury awarded her $63,000 in medical bills and $1,000,000 in non-economic damages. Because of Maryland's arbitrary cap on non-economic damages, the verdict was automatically reduced to $729,000. When we told the jury about this, they were mad. They put a lot of time and effort into arriving at a fair verdict, only to have it undone by a law they were not allowed to be told about during the trial. That's not fair. They intended their verdict to compensate my client for the rest of her life for her permanent injuries, not two-thirds of it.

These three tort reform proposals would do an immense amount of good for injury victims in Maryland. They make sense, and promote fairness in our civil justice system. On the other hand, the only real argument against them is an economic one, made by those who stand to lose the most- wrongdoers and their insurers.

Connecticut has outlawed the practice of using "runners"- when crooked lawyers pay third parties to solicit injury plaintiffs either in person at hospitals or by going through police reports. These injured folks are then steered to crooked doctors, and the crooked lawyer helps them recover on the trumped-up claim.

Of course, I am sure that there are also genuinely injured people who are ensnared by these "runners" as well. The problem there is that they end up with the lawyer who uses runners, rather than with the most competent lawyer for their kind of case.

This is one of the few things that reputable personal injury lawyers, insurance companies, judges and legislators all agree on. This is a practice that is a harm to society, and brings the legal system into disrepute. Thankfully, this practice has been illegal in Maryland for many years.

Thanks to Walter Olson at Point of Law for the link.

I have now resurfaced after a hard-fought four day trial in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City. This is the case that Ron Miller references here.

Laura Zois and I were privileged to obtain a verdict of $1,063,807.37 for our client, who was a 22 year old mother of a one year old at the time of the accident.

This was a hotly contested liability case. Our client contended she was injured when the Defendant, driving a full gasoline tanker, ran a red light. The defendant claimed he had a green light, and that our client must have had the red light. The accident happened at the intersection of Pennington Avenue and Church Street in Baltimore City. Our client's car was totaled, and the gas tanker was damaged, which caused a gasoline spill. Our client had her one-year old son in the car when the crash happened and had to watch him scream for his mom in a stranger's arms while our client was trapped in her car due to her badly broken leg.

There were liability witnesses on both sides. The pivotal witness was a young neighborhood boy was eleven years old at the time of the accident. He testified that he saw the gas tanker run the red light. The primary witness for the defense was a man who had been having a few beers that afternoon on a front porch near the scene of the accident. He testified that the gas tanker had a green light as he went under it. Based on conversations with the jurors after the verdict, the jury was persuaded by the young boy's testimony. He is a very bright young man who made an excellent witness.

Our client had a horrific right leg injury. She fractured her tibia and fibula, and required two surgeries. Now she has a plate and eighteen screws in her leg, permanent scarring, and walks with a limp. Her treating doctor testified at trial that her injuries are permanent, and that she will need a fusion surgery in the future. She was 25 at the time of trial, and her life expectancy is 52.8 more years. She lost nearly a year of her life recovering from this accident.

Our trial judge was the Hon. Sylvester Cox. Judge Cox is a former Baltimore City prosecutor who has tried many, many jury cases as a lawyer before being appointed to the bench. Appearing before him was a pleasure. His rulings were fair, although they did not always go in our direction. He was attentive to the arguments of the lawyers, and he was great at putting the witnesses and jurors at ease. He was a stickler for details and expected excellence.

Cases like this remind me of why I chose to become a lawyer representing injury victims. It is a great feeling to represent people who need our help. Our client is a remarkable young woman who, in spite of adversity, stayed upbeat and kept her faith that everything happens for a reason and that in the end justice would be served. During the three years between her accident and the trial she stayed focused on her job, her education and her son and did not let anything keep her down.

This case should remind us all that our justice system works. Our lawyers believe that helping a person who has a terrible injury as a result of someone else's negligence is always a case worth pursuing, even in a contributory negligence state like Maryland. The only settlement offer in this case was $25,000.00, and that did not come until two weeks before trial. That is less than the client's medical bills of $63,807.37 (which must be repaid to her health insurer). This was a case that had to be tried. Laura and I are very thankful that after a lot of hard work and worry, we were able to achieve a great result for a deserving client with a tremendous need for the justice the jury delivered.

Representing very seriously injured clients is the most rewarding part of my practice. Like most personal injury lawyers, one of the services we offer for those who need it is a home or hospital visit. I always feel strange doing these, like I am feeding into the "ambulance chaser" stereotype. I even have an uncle who calls me an ambulance chaser. He pretends it's funny, and I pretend I don't want to kill him.

Last week, I did a hopsital visit for a client at the R. Adams Cowley Shock Trauma Center. This unfortunate gentleman was in a motorcycle accident at high speed and was very badly hurt. In fact, he is lucky to be alive. Despite wearing all of the appropriate protective gear, he has several broken ribs, a broken wrist, a broken thumb, a broken leg, and a concussion. In addition, he has "road rash" over half his body, including a spot on his leg where you can see down to the bone.

I was called from the hospital by this man's brother. Our firm had handled his wife's auto accident injury case, and he was so impressed (particularly with how responsive Lisa Miller was to his wife's needs) that we were his first choice when his brother was seriously injured. So off I went to Shock Trauma to meet with the client and his family.

There are a few layers of security to get in. Once I actually obtained a visitor's badge and got upstairs, I was stopped by a nurse as I looked for the room. I told her who I was there to see, and she asked if I was a family member. I sheepishly replied that no, I was a lawyer. She gave me a look that said I might as well have told her I carried the SARS virus, and then showed me to the room.

You know what? These people were happy to see me. They repeatedly told me how grateful they were that I was willing to take the time and come right to the hospital to help them out.

It is actually hard to describe what it felt like for me to stand in front of this man, listening to a heart monitor mark each heartbeat while blood still drips from his wounds, and have him and his family thank ME for taking time out of my day to come and meet with them. They were happy to see me, and that we were going to try to help them.

I'm never going to feel ashamed doing a hospital visit again.

Just because a lawyer says they handle "personal injury" and "accident" cases doesn't necessarily mean that they have the knowledge and experience needed to handle injury cases arising from tractor-trailer or commercial vehicle accidents.

We see a lot of truck accident injury cases in Baltimore, probably because several major highways pass through the area.

These cases are significantly different than the average auto accident case. For starters, there are usually several parties involved other than the driver. There may be corporate entities that own the "tractor" portion of the rig and the "trailer" portion. There are often leasing agreements among the parties that dictate who is the responsible party, and what insurance is primary. There are special requirements in terms of safety inspections by state and federal regulatory authorities, and special licensing requirements for commercial drivers. Its important to hire an injury lawyer who knows where to find this information and how to use it to best present your claim for damages.

When you are selecting an attorney, ask how many truck accident injury cases they have handled, and taken to trial. What were the results in these cases? Does the lawyer you are considering really have the specialized knowledge and experience needed to get the best result in a trucking injury case? It's much better to get this information up front than it is to regret your choice of counsel later on.