Articles Posted in Legal News

This week has been an all-time record for traffic on the Maryland Personal Injury Lawyer Blog. Is this because of lawyers needing to know my thoughts on the nuances of handling personal injury cases? No. [EDITOR’S UPDATE: There is a verdict: click here for a blog post on this case’s VERDICT.]

For those of you just tuning in to this nonsense, Administrative Law Judge Roy Pearson is suing his dry cleaner for millions of dollars after they lost his pants. On the stand this week, Judge Pearson — I tried, I can’t do it — Mr. Pearson cried on the stand as he recalled the horror of losing the pants from his precious blue and maroon suit.

Mr. Pearson claims to have owned exactly five suits, all Hickey Freemans which do not come cheap, one for each day of the work week. But after putting on a few pounds, his suit rotation system crashed when he picked up his newly altered suits from the dry cleaner and could not find one pair of pants.

The Maryland Personal Injury Lawyer Blog moves back to Florida again this week where a partner at McDermott Will & Emery, and the head of its bankruptcy department, told a federal judge she was “a few french fries short of a Happy Meal.” I have now received an email on this story from 5 different attorneys, including my brother-in-law in Arizona.

Actually, the full quote is “I suggest to you with respect, Your Honor, that you’re a few French fries short of a Happy Meal in terms of what’s likely to take place.” This is probably directed to the way the details of the bankruptcy plan would unfold. Although she later su sponte calls for a show cause hearing why the lawyer should be permitted to continue to practice before her, the judge did not stop the hearing to address the issue. She asked the counsel to proceed. When reading a transcript, the tone is lost. We do not know how this really happened.

The way to avoid this issue in the first place is for lawyers to remember there is a trancript being generated. It is also a wonderful idea for lawyers, particularly in this kind of venue, to save Jerry Seinfeld-like efforts. Every time you get a laugh or someone thinks you are witty, someone else thinks you are silly or disrespectful. For the latter, this is Exhibit A.

[EDITOR’S UPDATE: There is a verdict: click here for blog on the good news of a VERDICT in Pearson v. Chang.]
lost pants case

Pearson v. Chang was the McDonald case of the last decade

If Roy Pearson did not exist, advocates of tort reform would invent him. Mr. Pearson is an administrative law judge who sued his neighborhood dry cleaner for misplacing his pants. Two years, over 1000 hours of Mr. Pearson’s time, thousands of pages of legal pleadings, and discovery later, Pearson continues his battle against the dry cleaner. His complaint seeks $65,462,500 from the dry cleaner, including compensation for such things as “mental suffering, inconvenience, and discomfort,” for the value of the time he has spent on the lawsuit, and, my favorite, for leasing a car every weekend for 10 years because there is no dry cleaner close to his house. If you didn’t get that the first time, this is over a single misplaced pair of pants.

The Maryland Senate has passed House Bill 425 and the Maryland House of Delegates today also passed the bill, which puts a new requirement of good faith for insurance companies dealing with their insureds. The bill now heads to Governor O’Malley for his signature. The Governor has previously pledged support for the bill.

This issue has been a reoccurring topic on the Maryland Personal Injury Lawyer Blog. See this post and this post. My partner, Laura G. Zois, testified before the Maryland Senate and House of Delegates about three weeks ago on this very issue. I know that after the bill passed the Maryland Senate, there were a lot of lobbying efforts from the insurance companies to keep it from passing in the House of Delegates. They pushed the vote back, and I began to doubt whether Maryland would join most states that already have first-party bad faith. I’m thrilled the Maryland Assembly put the interest of Maryland injury victims and consumers ahead of the insurance company and their lobbyists.

This is a huge win for victims and their attorneys who are fighting to get injury victims a fair recovery for their injuries and the benefits of the insurance contract for which they are paying premiums.

Ever wonder why your insurance rates go up when you get a speeding ticket? A study of 3.7 million licensed Maryland drivers shows that ticketing does not reduce drivers’ likelihood of getting another ticket for speeding.

Researchers at the University of Maryland School of Medicine looked at Maryland’s licensed drivers and found that getting a speeding ticket almost doubles the risk of receiving a subsequent speeding citation.

The study also turned up interesting data comparing those who go to court for speeding tickets and those that do not. As every Maryland driver knows, if you get a speeding ticket and you were not doing a complete Dale Earnhardt impression, you can either go to court (where you will invariably be found guilty so your best bet is to plead guilty) or you can pay the fine by mail. The University of Maryland study found that the likelihood of receiving another speeding ticket was 12 percent among drivers who had opted to pay fines and received points on their driving records compared to eight percent among those who received probation before judgment (PBJ). This makes sense. The driver who cared enough to go to court is probably more likely to slow down.

The Maryland Gazette reports today that Peter G. Angelos is lobbying the General Assembly’s judicial committees to kill a bill that would allow Maryland to join 46 other states in switching from a standard of contributory negligence to one of comparative fault.

Angelos’ fear, which all Maryland plaintiffs’ lawyers fully share, is that with comparative negligence we might lose joint and several liability, which allows plaintiffs to seek full recovery from culpable parties who are not 50% responsible. All defendants who are substantially contributing causes of a plaintiff’s injury are individually fully responsible for the total amount of a jury award to a successful plaintiff. A separate court action later decides how much each defendant pays.

More to the point for Mr. Angelos, his firm handles asbestos cases where some responsible parties are bankrupt. Mr. Angelos’ concern is his potential failure to gain a full recovery in these asbestos cases.

America Online (AOL) is running an article titled “Most Outrageous Lawsuits.” It appears in the money and finance section of AOL and was also prominently displayed on the AOL home page. As a frequent user of AOL (I really love their product) for the last 11 years, I keep seeing this article over and over.

The “crazy lawsuits” AOL describes come directly from groups like Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse (CALA) and the American Tort Reform Association (ATRA), groups who see personal injury lawyers as the great Satan whose sole mission is to destroy corporate America while lining our pockets with millions of dollars.

These groups rely on a false premise: that the American public cannot be trusted and American juries give out ridiculous awards that unsubstantiated by the evidence or even common sense. The groups that vilify personal injury lawyers are entitled to their opinion and they are not wrong that frivolous lawsuits sometimes get filed. What it does not entitle them to is their own facts. But they often make up their own facts, manufacturing insane lawsuits and verdicts that never happened.

Phillip J. Closius was named as the new dean of the University of Baltimore School of Law today. Dean Closius is the former dean of the University of Toledo College of Law. He is a former practicing attorney who teaches and conducts scholarship in the areas of Constitutional, First Amendment and Sports Law.

Dean Holmes made a lot of progress in his tenure at the University of Baltimore. Hopefully, Dean Closius can build off Dean Holmes’ work to take the University of Baltimore School of Law to the next level. I started on the adjunct facility at UB in 1998 and now teach at the University every semester. I have seen a lot of progress in recent years in the quality of students and the resources we have, and I hope that the new dean can keep this ball rolling.

The Maryland legislature is considering joining the rest of the civilized world – okay, I’ll kill the hyperbole – the vast majority of jurisdictions by adopting a comparative negligence standard in Maryland. The contributory negligence standard we have in Maryland is harsh to injury victims and creates genuine challenges for Maryland personal injury lawyers seeking justice for their clients. Under contributory negligence, the accident or medical malpractice victim’s failure to exercise due care which contributes even in the slightest way to the plaintiff’s injuries is an absolute bar to recovery. Under this rule, even if the jury believed the plaintiff was only 1% at fault for his/her injuries, the plaintiff would be completely barred from recovering for those injuries.

All but 5 states have moved into the modern era and adopted contributory negligence. It would be a blessing for injury victims in Maryland if Maryland dropped that number down to 4.

The Maryland Gazette posted an interesting – albeit pro-business – article on Friday on this issue of Maryland reconsidering contributory negligence.

The cap on pain and suffering damages in Maryland for claims arising after today has increased to $680,000. This is also the maximum cap on any non-medical malpractice wrongful death case if there is only one claimant. The wrongful death cap with two or more beneficiaries in a non-medical malpractice case is now $1,020,000.

The pain and suffering cap in Maryland in medical malpractice cases as the result of a bill that the General Assembly passed last year remains at $650,000. This is also the maximum cap on medical malpractice wrongful death cases if there is only one claimant. The wrongful death cap with two or more beneficiaries in medical malpractice cases that arise after today is $812,500.

Contact Information