Articles Posted in Maryland Courts

I guess the summer is over. The Maryland Court of Appeals is back in business, issuing several appellate opinions over the last few weeks. First on our hit list is Duckett v. Riley, a medical malpractice case filed in Prince George’s County in 2003.

New medical malpractice opinion

Anyway, every plaintiffs lawyer knows that when you file a personal injury lawsuit, you have to ask for a jury trial in a separate one line pleading. I can’t imagine leaving it off, but I always wonder in fear what would happen if I ever screwed up and left it off. Well, the plaintiff in Duckett v. Riley found out. The long and hard way.

Plaintiff filed a medical malpractice lawsuit but did not put in the request for a jury trial. But the plaintiff demonstrated an intent for a jury trial by checking the “Jury Trial Request” box on the civil information sheet. Defendants’ were not served with that information sheet. (This was – not for nothing – the first question asked of plaintiff’s counsel in oral arguments in the Court of Appeals.)

Defendant got the scheduling order and saw a jury trial had been set and objected. The motions’ judge in P.G. County agreed with the plaintiff. The case was then assigned to a trial judge – now retired Judge Thomas Smith – who had different ideas. Judge Smith concluded that the plaintiff had not properly requested a jury trial. He heard the case and entered a defense verdict. The Maryland Court of Special Appeals reversed in an unreported opinion, finding that the purpose of Maryland Rule 2-325 – to place the opposing party on notice that a jury trial has been demanded – had been met. Continue reading

Now, this is a shock. The Maryland Court of Appeals ends its summer of avoiding personal injury cases with a vengeance by reconsidering and overruling its own controversial ruling on strict liability for pit bull attacks. The court reversed course and decided that the ruling should only apply to purebred dogs in Tracey v. Solesky. Wow!

“The majority (of which I was a part) erred in gratuitously applying strict liability to crossbreds when that issue was never in the case,” Judge Alan M. Wilner wrote in rescinding the court’s order. Judge Wilner also pointed out how rare it is for an appellate court to grant a motion for reconsideration. (Note

Wow. This move deserves at least two “wows.”

The Maryland Court of Special Appeals issued an opinion on Friday in Dixon v. Ford Motor Co., reversing a plaintiffs’ asbestos verdict.

Update on This Case: The Maryland high court reversed!

As is the case in asbestos cases involving a wrongful death and mesothelioma cancer, the verdict was large. The jury awarded $15 million in damages to the plaintiffs, which the court reduced to $6,065,000, pursuant to Maryland’s non-economic damages cap. Defendants filed post-trial motions requesting a new trial and revisions or judgments notwithstanding the verdict. The trial judge – retired Judge Carol E. Smith – shot down those claims, but ruled that the jury’s verdict was inconsistent and revised the judgments against two of the defendants to account for a joint tortfeasor release to a little over $3 million. Both the plaintiff and one of the defendants – Ford, a company I otherwise like except that it always seems to stick their chest out in litigation, at least in Maryland – appealed.

Raise your hand if you got a little lost there. Me too. Basically what happened is the plaintiffs settled out with three defendants, but the settlement agreements did not determine whether the defendants were joint tortfeasors, and so they remained in the case nominally as Ford’s cross-defendants. So you have the surreal world of defendants at trial that are not represented by a lawyer. None of this really matters, ultimately, because the Court of Special Appeals reverses the verdict, making academic all the joint tortfeasor issues.

Continue reading

The U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee recommended today that the full Senate vote to confirm Chief U.S. Magistrate Judge Paul Grimm to the federal bench.

We had a chance to put him on the Maryland Court of Appeals we let slip away.  Judge Grimm will make a great addition to the federal bench, but I don’t know that Marylanders will benefit. As a magistrate judge, he is already presiding over trials and doing many of the things that district court judges do. I would have preferred to see Judge Grimm on the Maryland Court of Appeals helping interpret and make new Maryland law.  I’m still mad that Governor O’Malley never made that happen. Because I spend a lot more time in state court than federal court.

2014 Postscript

The U.S. District Court for Maryland issued an opinion this week denying summary judgment in Gilliespie v. Ruby Tuesday, a res ipsa premises liability case.

Case Facts

The facts are simple. Plaintiff went to a Ruby Tuesday in Aberdeen, Maryland, for lunch. Before the plaintiff and her friends were seated, a waiter stood on a chair and adjusted the lamp hanging above the plaintiff’s table. A half-hour later, the lamp came crashing down on the plaintiff.

How much would you bet that the waiter caused that lamp to fall? I wouldn’t bet my house, but I would definitely be willing to bet an amount that I would hate to lose.

But maybe you are less impulsive than I am and instead of making a quick bet, you would rather have more information. What would you want to know? The first thing on your list I’m sure would be what an inspection of the light fixture showed, right? Well, Ruby Tuesday “attempted to preserve the shade after the incident” but lost the lamp in the “ordinary course of business.” With your best efforts, you can’t keep a lamp that fell on someone’s head? It gives you a warm and fuzzy feeling about “We tried to keep dangerous toxins out of your food, but we let some slip into your cajun jambalaya pasta in the ordinary course of business.” Either way, the parties made a federal case out of it. Continue reading

Friday, I wrote a blog post about the Maryland Court of Appeals opinion in Tracey v. Solesky that imposes strict liability for pit bull owners and, seemingly, landlords, in dog bite cases. I’ve offered an opinion supportive of the court’s ruling and argued that the court should go a step further and hold all dog owners accountable when their dog bites another person (or animal for that matter).

I think I’m right on the latter point. If your dog bites someone and causes serious injury, I think you should be liable for the harm that was caused. But I got a lot of comments and emails from people who strongly disagreed with some loose facts that I threw out. While some of these comments were just crazy aunts and uncles peeking out of their attics and basements, others provided real insight about these dogs that showed a far greater appreciation of facts and studies about pit bulls than I have.

Continue reading

A divided Maryland Court of Appeals has made a new law today. In Tracey v. Solesky, the court ruled that in dog bite cases involving a pit bull or cross-bred pit bull mix; it is no longer necessary to prove that the dog in particular or pit bulls in general are dangerous. Is this a win for plaintiffs’ lawyers? Is it an anti-dog opinion? Will it lead to changes in homeowners’ policies throughout Maryland? With apologies to Steven L. Miles, let’s talk about it. (August 21, 2012 Update: Incredibly, the court has reversed itself on a key portion of this opinion.)

Solesky Case Facts

This case involves a pit bull named Clifford who lived in East Towson, just two blocks from York Road and the Towson University campus. While a big fellow like Clifford the Big Red Dog, this Clifford was a bit more viperous. One day, Clifford attacked two boys on the same day in Towson, Maryland. The injuries to the second boy were serious: he needed five hours of surgery at Johns Hopkins Hospital to address his injuries, including surgery to repair his femoral artery. He spent seventeen days in the hospital, had additional surgeries, and spent a year in rehabilitation. I’m not sure how old the boy was but, either way, it’s just an awful thing.

The boy and his parents sued the owners of the pit bull that mauled him and the owners’ landlords. The owners of the dog went into bankruptcy and received a discharge of their debt. The only defendant standing was the landlord (Although the Long & Foster lease executed allowed Clifford’s owners to keep an “American Bulldog Terrier” on a property that did not have a fence.). Continue reading