Recently in Newsworthy Events Category

On Monday, April 12th, a jury in Baltimore County awarded $1 million to a 52-year-old woman who fell down a flight of stairs at the Belvedere hotel while attending her own bachelorette party.

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.

Lois Farias, an 85-year-old former school crossing guard, was awarded $368,000.00 last month for injuries she sustained five years ago when a vehicle owned by the U.S. government struck her in a crosswalk while she was working as a crossing guard in Prince George's County.

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.

Robert E. Cahill, Sr., retired Baltimore County Circuit Court judge, died on December 14th from a long standing illness.  He was 77.  Judge Cahill will be remembered as a no-nonsense trial judge with a great legal mind and lots of instinct and wit.  His obituary appears in the Baltimore Sun.

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.

The head of the Maryland Attorney Grievance Commssion, Melvin Hirschman, will retire on June 30, 2010 after serving since 1981.  The Daily Record reported this breaking story earlier today.  Mr. Hirschman has led the commission, which investigates all complaints for attorney misconduct, since 1981.  The AGC was created only six years earlier, in 1975.  Attorneys who are publically sanctioned can be viewed at the Maryland Judiciary Web Site.

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.

In May of 2009, trial was held in Anne Arundel County in the case of a motorcyclist who was injured when he lost control of his bike and crashed. The motorcyclist alleged that another driver cut him off while trying to make a left hand turn in front of the him. The Defendant denied responsibility, arguing that the Plaintiff lost control of his motorcycle well before Defendant began to make her turn. The jury agreed with the Defendant, finding that the Plaintiff was solely responsible for his own injuries.

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.

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.

On June, 12, 2009, Maryland's top court rendered a decision in Pittway Corporation, et al. and The Ryland Group v. Stephon Collins, et al., No. 128, September Term, 2007. See Maryland Judiciary Website at http://mdcourts.gov/opinions/coa/2009/128a07.pdf. The case is important for its discussion of the difference between what are known as "intervening" and "superceding" acts of negligence in cases involving multiple defendants where each acted negligently at different times but where there is only one injury. Determining the extent to which a defendant's acts are so far removed in time and place from subsequent acts of negligence by other defendants so as to relieve an earlier defendant of liability is a difficult task for any court or jury to determine. The instant case was no different in the degree of complexity of the legal analysis, yet it provides an excellent review of the different types of "causation" issues that a case like this presents and makes clear that trial court judges must usually consider the unique facts of the case before reaching decisions on intervening and superceding acts of negligence which may relieve early defendants of liability.

The case involves tragic facts. A home had been renovated by the owners who converted their basement into a medical office. No permits were pulled for the renovations and electrical work was performed. The home was originally built by Ryland Homes and was renovated by a number of subcontractors. The home was eventually rented out and the basement used for bedrooms. At the time of the original construction and subsequently during the basement renovations, substandard fire detectors were located in the basement with insufficient battery back up. A fire broke out in the home and the children of the renters and their friends were killed or seriously injured when a fire broke out. The plaintiffs alleged that a smoke detector with adequate battery back up would have saved the childrens' lives.

Suit was filed against a large number of defendants, including the manufacturers of the smoke detector and Ryan Homes, alleging negligence and product defects which resulted in the smoke alarm not working when it should have. The smoke alarm at the time was the one originally installed by Ryland during new home construction and was not changed by the renovating contractors and subcontractors during the basement renovations. The manufacturers argued successfully at trial that the failure of the contractors to install newer battery back up alarms were superceding acts of negligence as a matter of law relieving the manufacturers of liability, particularly since the alarms were in compliance with the building code in place at the time the home was built. The trial court agreed and dismissed the case as to the manufacturers and others, and relied upon the allegations contained within the complaint without considering other factual evidence. Thus, the court granted multiple motions to dismiss on the basis that the moving defendants were relieved of responsibility "as a matter of law" due to the superceding acts of the contractors in not removing and reinstalling more modern smoke detectors.

The Court of Appeals reversed the trial judge's decision, and determined that a trial court ordinarily may not rule on "causation" issues as a matter of law simply by considering the facts alleged in the lawsuit itself, and must consider other specific factual evidence developed during the discovery phase of the case. In the last footnote of the opinion, however, the court noted that upon remand to the trial court for further consideration of the specific facts surrounding the installation of the detector, the content of certain user manuals, and other factual evidence, the trial could find superceding acts of negligence by the renovating contractors that would justify dismissal of one or more of the moving defendants from the case.

The complexities of the court's opinion have been omitted and simplified here. Proximate cause is an essential element of every negligence action. Where more than one defendant is involved, the issue of whose acts and omissions "caused" injury are frequently disputed. The lawyers at Belsky, Weinberg & Horowitz keep abreast of the law and legal decisions from our state's courts. We understand the difficulties presented by issues of proximate cause and have dealt successfully with issues similar to those raised in the Pittway case. Please contact our litigation department should you have further questions about our practice areas or a potential claim you have.