Lillian Blank, who was standing on a dance floor on the 13th floor bar, fell down 19 steps, to a landing between the 12th and 13th floors of the hotel, sustaining a fractured pelvis and a fractured wrist. She filed suit against the hotel, alleging the hotel failed to provide proper lighting at the stairs, and the dimly lit staircase had a dark rope at the top of stairs which Ms. Blank could not see.
After a 4 day trial, during which the plaintiff's alcohol consumption prior to the fall became an issue, the jury returned a verdict in her favor, awarding her $59,546 for medical expenses, $44,694 for lost wages and $895,660 for pain and suffering. The verdict will be reduced to $791,935.70 because of the cap of non-economic damages.
]]>
Ms. Farias suffered deep tissue injury to her back, neck, knee and shoulder in the accident, for which the defendant took responsibility. The only issue at trial was damages. The goverment contended that her pre-exisiting arthritis was to blame for her current complaints and early retirement. Prior to trial, the government offered $125,000.00 to settle the claim. Ultimately, U.S. Magistrate Judge Paul W. Grimm awarded Ms. Farias $22,000.00 in past medical expenses, $46,000.00 in lost wages and $300,000.00 in non-economic damages. The Plaintiff was represented by Paul Bekman.
]]>
Maryland law requires property owners and motor vehicle operators to act with "due diligence and care" in protecting others from harm. The question we have not had to confront in many years is what the standard of "diligence" encompasses when weather conditions are such that even a person's best efforts are not good enough to prevent harm.
We all can agree that the amount of precipitation in the area was such that even our state and local governments were overwhelmed with the burden of remediating the conditions. In Baltimore City, for example, it took more than a week for the City to open all secondary roads. For nearly two weeks, parking lanes and sidewalks were barely passable.
Reasonable care is dependant on the circumstances presented to those whose conduct is being judged. We believe in many instances that although injury may have occurred, due care would not have changed the conditions existing at the time. We encourage those injured as a result of the weather conditions and potential negligence to contact our office. We will consider all cases on the facts and will honestly and candidly offer our advice to help guide and counsel those suffering personal injury due to the recent storms.
]]>Some states, like Pennsylvania, have state laws that require complete snow removal from vehicles before they are operated. In Maryland, no such state law is on the books. The common law of negligence, however, dictates that a driver who fails to take appropriate action to remove obvious snow and ice from their vehicles will be held accountable for damage and injuries should the debris dislodge. This concept is akin to operating a vehicle with a known mechanical defect that results in an accident. Drivers should take the time and make the effort to remove all snow and ice from their vehicles. Otherwise, they can and should expect a claim against their insurance policy. Severe accidents and injuries from flying snow and ice debris are reported daily. Drivers are on notice by virtue of their own driving experience and common sense that the operation of a vehicle under such conditions is a danger to other motorists on the highways.
The lawyers at Belsky, Weinberg & Horowitz have successfully represented victims of accidents caused by flying snow and ice debris. In the event of such an incident, be sure to control your vehicle first, and then take note of as much information as possible about the at-fault vehicle. Should you be unable to get sufficient identifying information about that vehicle, report the incident immediately to the police and your insurance company, who will likely establish an uninsured motorist claim on your behalf. Such a claim will protect your rights and afford you compensation for property damage and personal injury, and will have no adverse impact on your insurance rates, renewal, or your general insurability. Please consult with a lawyer right away, particularly if you have suffered personal injury. We are available, free of charge, to discuss your case.
]]>The lawyers at Belsky, Weinberg & Horowitz had the honor of trying a variety of cases before Judge Cahill. We learned a great deal from his handling of trials, motions and courtroom procedures. We knew he always expected a great deal of us as advocates for our clients and we hope we lived up to his expectations. We learned a great deal from the judge and express our condolences to his family.
]]>Belsky, Weinberg and Horowitz partner Alan J. Belsky serves as a Panel Member for the Attorney Grievance Commision and has sat on a number of peer review panels hearing various complaints of attorney misconduct. Peer review is confidential unless public charges are brought. Thereafter, the matter is referred to a Circuit Court judge for findings of fact and conclusions of law. An appeal can then be taken directly to the Court of Appeals of Maryland. Unfortunately, a fair number of reported opinions are issued every year by the Court of Appeals on issues involving attorney grievances. Any reported opinion containing the AGC in the case name involves an attorney facing disciplinary action.
]]>If you've been in an accident where your property damage and bodily injury claims are not yet settled, call us before it's too late. We are here to help you with your case. Call us anytime to speak with one of our attorneys.
]]>The attorneys at Belsky, Weinberg & Horowitz have represented many victims of automobile accidents. Our experience can be invaluable in assisting our clients who have been injured as a result of someone else's negligence. If you have been hurt in an automobile, motorcycle, or truck accident, call or email us for a free consultation and evaluation of your case.
]]>A typical example where UM benefits are needed is where serious injuries have been sustained by one or more individuals in a vehicle struck by another who is deemed at fault. Under Maryland law, the person (non-business) must carry a minimum of $20,000 of coverage for the bodily injury of one victim and a total of $40,000 to cover the bodily injury of all victims involved in a single accident. Although this amount may seem significant, it is actually very scant coverage which oridinarily falls well below what is required to pay the claims in full. When a shortage of coverage arises, the UM coverage may be tapped to provide additional coverage provided the UM limits of the victims' policies exceed the limits of the at fault driver's policy. So, if one who is injured has a $50,000 per person UM limit, and the at fault driver has a $20,000 per person limit, the victim may claim the difference between the at fault's policy and their own as additional coverage. In the example, that amount would be an extra $30,000.
UM claims can be very tricky and complicated due to issues surrounding the proper method for making claim, settling claims with more than one insurance company, and determining when the applicable statute of limitations begins to run. If you find yourself involved in an accident involving an uninsured or underinsured driver, please contact our attorneys who will be happy to explain your rights to all appropriate benefits and coverage.
]]>
Your attorney will examine the specific facts of your case, including: the nature and severity of your injuries, your medical records, how easily or difficult it will be to prove liability (fault), the connection between your injuries and the accident, the witnesses' statements regarding the accident itself; the extent of insurance coverage and where the accident occurred as well as where the other driver resides. All of these factors are extremely important and must be taken into account when determining whether or not to accept an offer. The insurance company takes all of the same factors into account when deciding how much money to offer on the claim. These days, many insurance companies use computer programs to decide the offer. The adjuster inputs all of the information about you, about where the accident occurred and the type of injury you suffered and the programs gives that adjuster a "range' of settlement amounts. The attorneys here at Belsky, Weinberg & Horowitz have many years of experience dealing with auto accident cases just like yours. The insurance companies know which attorneys settle all of their cases and which ones will go to bat for their clients in court. These companies know that our attorneys will not hesitate to reject their "low-ball" offers and file suit for their clients.
If a case cannot settle, and a lawsuit must be filed, it is important to decide whether to file suit in a District Court or in the Circuit Court. In the District Court, verdicts vary widely, depending on which judge decides the case and in which jurisdiction the case is being tried. The attorneys at Belsky, Weinberg & Horowitz understand this, and are very familiar with the judges in Maryland Courts. Experience allows us to predict, within a fairly narrow range, the amount of money a particular judge will award as compensation.
If the case will be tried by a jury, it is more difficult to predict. Jurors in certain areas are more generous than others. In general, jurors in our western counties, and on the eastern shore, are much more conservative and less likely to award large sums of money, than jurors in places such as Baltimore city and Prince George's County.
In most instances, you will be compensated for your medical bills and lost wages. The other part of compensation is for "pain and suffering." This award can vary widely, depending on the type of injury. This type of award is much more difficult to predict, especially when the jury, which is comprised of six individuals from the local community, is making the decision. As I discussed above, a juror in Cumberland is likely to award much less than a juror in Baltimore city.
It is important to retain a competent, experienced attorney after you have been in an automobile accident. The lawyers at Belsky, Weinberg & Horowitz will work to protect your interests and negotiate the best possible outcome for you.
]]>Embracing the rule set forth in the Restatement (Second), Maryland appellate courts have long recognized the ability of parties to specify in their contracts which state's law will apply. Jackson v. Pasadena Receivables, Inc., 398 Md. 611, 617 (2007). The Court of Appeals has required the existence of a "strong" public policy to override a choice-of-law clause in a contract, id. at 621, and has not hesitated to apply out-of-state law, even where it would trump an act of the General Assembly. Id. at 627. However, it is difficult to think of a stronger or more fundamental public policy than one expressed in the State Constitution. Nor can we conceive of a more forceful statement of the duty of a state court than found in Article 2 of the Declaration of Rights. Unlike the oath for State office contained in Article I, §9 of the Maryland Constitution, which requires a judge to "support" the laws of the State, Article 2 expressly mandates that "judges of this State" are "bound" by federal law, notwithstanding "anything in the Constitution of Laws of this State to the contrary."20 Moreover, in the absence of a controlling decision of the U.S. Supreme Court, Maryland courts are to "decide federal questions the way they believe theSupreme Court would decide them," Donald Ziegler, Gazing at the Crystal Ball: Reflections on the Standards State Judges Should Use to Ascertain Federal Law, 40 Wm & Mary L. Rev.1143, 1177 (1999), not the way some federal courts have. Pope, supra, 284 Md. at 320. That is particularly true of a federal question like that presented in Koons Ford, which had divided courts around the country. To adopt appellees' position that a decision of Maryland's highest court on a federal question dissolves because of another state's opposing interpretation of federal law, or because of a headcount of federal appellate or district court decisions on the subject, would require Maryland courts to decide a federal question contrary to the way they believe the Supreme Court would have decided it. This would fly in the face of Article 2 of the Declaration of Rights. Thus, we conclude that embracing a decision of another state or a federal court disagreeing with Koons Ford, would, in the words of §187(2)(b) of the Restatement (Second), "be contrary to a fundamental policy of [this] State.