Posted on July 22, 2008 in Automobile Accident

Experienced Maryland Personal Injury Attorneys know the various ways to recover for injuries suffered if involved in an accident with a vehicle owned by a business or company. If a Maryland resident is injured when their vehicle is struck by a company or business vehicle driven by another person, there are several sources of recovery for their injuries, including the company’s insurance, the other driver’s insurance or their own insurance company. If a Maryland resident is driving a company vehicle that is involved in an accident, they potentially may recover from; 1) Workers’ Compensation, 2) the other driver’s insurance company or 3) their own insurance company.

Maryland Personal Injury Lawyers who have experience handling car accident case in Maryland involving commercial vehicles or vehicles owned by business or companies in Maryland know that there are several different avenues of recovery to help injured Maryland residents. If the car accident victim was struck or injured by a commercial vehicle, the experienced Maryland Personal Injury Lawyer https://www.silvermanthompson.com/lawyer-attorney-1300832.html will be able to advise their client on to receive compensation for their injuries from one of three different sources. Injured Maryland car accident victims can recover for their injuries from the following sources; 1) The other driver’s personal car insurance may be liable to pay for accident, 2) the company or business who owned the vehicle that struck the victim may be liable to pay, 3) a victim may potentially recover from their own insurance company for injuries suffered in the accident if the company or other driver are uninsured.
If a Maryland Accident Victim is involved in an accident while they are driving a vehicle owned by their employer there are three possible sources of recovery for their injuries. 1) If the victim was driving the company vehicle during the course and scope of their employment, they will entitled to collect Workers’ Compensation benefits for their injury. Collecting Workers’ Compensation benefits does preclude the victim from suing their employer, but does not preclude them from filing suit against the other driver. Essentially, an injured employee can double dip. 2) an injured victim may collect for their injuries from the insurance company of the driver that struck their work vehicle. 3) an injured victim may also collect from their own automobile insurance when driving a company vehicle that is struck by another driver, if that driver is uninsured.
If you or a loved one is involved in an accident involving a commercial vehicle or while driving a work vehicle please contact an the Maryland Accident Attorneys for a free consultation.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on July 22, 2008 in Driving While Suspended

As a Maryland DUI/DWI Attorney I represent many individuals who receive a DUI or DWI and as a result have to deal with a suspension or revocation of their privilege to drive, although this is certainly not the only reason why the MVA would suspend one’s license.

When a person receives a DUI or DWI in Maryland, that person faces two possible suspensions of his or her driver’s license. The person will first face a suspension of his driver’s license, depending upon whether or not he took the breathalyzer. The defendant will also face suspension if he is ultimately convicted of the DUI or DWI when the matters proceeds to court. In addition to suspensions resulting from DWI’s and DUI’s a person may have his license suspended for several other reasons. By far the most frequent cause of a license suspension is that a person fails to appear in court for a minor traffic citation or fails to pay the fine after appearing. These so called “H” violations make up the vast majority of suspended license cases. A person may also have his privilege suspended or revoked due to an accumulation of points, for not paying child support, for receiving three moving violations within a a six month period, and for several other reasons.

Regardless of the reason for the suspension, in order to convict the defendant in court, the state must prove that the person was actually driving a motor vehicle (a person cannot be convicted for attempting to drive while suspended the way he or she can for attempting to drive while under the influence or impaired) on a public street or public access road or parking lot. The state must also show that person was affirmatively placed on notice by the state of the fact that the person’s license was suspended on the date of the offense. This element is the most fertile area for a Maryland DWI/DUI/Criminal Lawyer to search for a defense to these charges.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on July 21, 2008 in Controlled Dangerous Substances (CDS)

As an experienced and aggressive Maryland Criminal Attorney I regularly represent defendants in Baltimore County, Baltimore City, Anne Arundel County and throughout the State of Maryland who are charged with violating state laws criminalizing the manufacture of controlled dangerous substances (CDS), distribution of CDS or with possessing these substances in sufficient quantities and/or under certain circumstances which would lead to conclusion that the defendant possessed the substance with the intent to distribute it. The CDS’s mostly commonly involved in these cases in Maryland are cocaine, heroin and marijuana although an increasingly large percentage of these cases involve prescription pain killers such as Percocet, Oxycontin, Hydrocodone and others. A small percentage of cases involve so called “club drugs” such as MDNA also known as ecstasy, ketamine and others. Occasionally a Maryland criminal lawyer will run into a case involving PCP or methamphetamines.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on July 21, 2008 in Personal Injury

Personal injury settlements involving minors in Maryland are strictly governed by the legislature to protect the minor. Under Title 13, Section 402 of the Estates and Trusts Article, Annotated Code of Maryland “it is public policy of the state that any substantial sum of money paid to a minor because of a claim, action, or judgment in tort should be preserved for the benefit of the minor.”

That according to Title 13, Section 403 of the Estates and Trusts Article, Annotated Code of Maryland, “if a minor or any other person in whose name a claim in tort is made or judgment in tort obtained on behalf of a minor recovers a net sum of $5,000 or more, the person responsible for the payment of the money shall make payment by check made to the order of ‘(name of trustee), trustee under Title 13 of the Estates and Trusts Article, Annotated Code of Maryland, for (name of minor), minor'”.

Simply put, under Maryland law, the proceeds of a personal injury settlement for a minor are to be preserved for the minor until the minor turns eighteen.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on July 18, 2008 in Train Accidents

As an experienced Maryland trial lawyer who has been regularly representing victims and their families in fatal and catastrophic train accidents since 1995, there has been an important but gradual change in Maryland law over the past several decades. This change is in the area of private v. public railroad crossings and how Maryland and other jurisdictions view them as the classification affects victims of train accidents.

The duties owed to individuals at private crossings as compared to public crossings were first enunciated by a Maryland court in Annapolis & B. S. L. R. Co. v. Pumphrey, 72 Md. 82, 19 A. 8, 9 (1890). That Court stated:
There is no statute of this state which imposes upon the (railroad) the duty to give signals of the approach of its trains to a private road or farm crossing. Numerous cases in this state and elsewhere have held that a failure on the part of a railroad company to give proper warnings of the approach of its trains to a public highway or thorofare crossing is an act of culpable negligence; but we are aware of no decision which fixes upon a defendant the like consequence for omitting such warnings as to farm crossings. On the contrary, it has been determined twice by this court that no such obligation exists.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on July 18, 2008 in Contributory Negligence

As an experienced Maryland personal injury lawyer, it is frustrating to that Maryland still follows the arcane doctrine of contributory negligence. As one of four jurisdictions in the United States that follows this doctrine, contributory negligence in Maryland causes congestion in the Maryland trial courts and unfair results for deserving victims.

The doctrine of contributory negligence basically says that if a victim of personal injury is 1% at fault, then that party is 100% barred from recovery anything.

For example; a drunk driver runs a stop sign and smashes into a sober driver. The injured sober driver is paralyzed by the collision. If the case goes to trial and the defense attorney successfully argues that the sober driver is contributory negligent because he was exceeding the speed limit and failed to avoid the collision with the drunk driver, the drunk driver who ran the stop sign pays nothing!

Despite being unfair and unjust, the doctrine of contributory negligence also needlessly clogs the court system. Such is the case because in Maryland because nearly every defendant has a shot at wining as long as winning means you have to show the plaintiff was 1% at fault (even though the defendant is 99% at fault). Having contributory negligence clogs Maryland courtrooms with thousands of slip and fall type cases because in nearly every slip and fall case, the defense attorney can claim that the injured party should have “watched where he was going”. For this reason and this reason alone, thousands of cases get filed in Maryland that otherwise should settle.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on July 17, 2008 in Birth Trauma Malpractice / Cerebral Palsy Malpractice

A Wisconsin court has approved an $18.2 million medical malpractice settlement from the government for a Milwaukee family whose daughter suffered severe brain damage during birth at a clinic. When the mother gave birth, her daughter was stuck in the birth canal for more than 20 minutes, and the girl suffered a major brain injury due to lack of oxygen. As a result of her birth injury, the girl will need assistance for the rest of her life, due to seizures, developmental delays and severe cerebral palsy. A copy of an article regarding the case can be found here.

Cases involving permanent injuries to kids are some of the most difficult cases that Maryland and District of Columbia medical malpractice lawyers pursue because they usually involve multiple expert witnesses, such as obstetricians, pediatric neurologists, neonatologists, placental pathologists, life care planners and economists. This makes them extremely expensive and time-consuming to pursue. Nevertheless, these cases are extremely important to file and pursue, so that compensation can be obtained for the child and the parents, in order to give the child with best medical and other care that the child can have, so as to maximize the child’s comfort and abilities. Nothing could be more important.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on July 16, 2008 in Automobile Accident

Oftentimes, in automobile accident cases, it may be difficult to obtain service for an individual defendant. Perhaps the defendant provided the wrong address at the scene of the accident. Or perhaps the defendant has moved at some point between the date of the accident and the date suit is actually filed. Fortunately, Maryland law sets forth a statutory tool for obtaining a defendant’s last known address from the defendant’s insurance company.

Under section 6-311 of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article, a plaintiff may request a defendant’s last known address directly from the defendant’s insurance company. In order to obtain this information, the plaintiff must file a certification with the court (i) stating that the defendant had insurance coverage at the time of the incident, (ii) detailing the reasonable efforts made by the plaintiff to locate the defendant; and (iii) stating that the defendant is evading service or that the whereabouts of the defendant are unknown. This certification must also be served upon the defendant’s insurer.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on July 16, 2008 in Maryland Criminal Procedure

As an experienced Maryland Criminal lawyer at Silverman, Thompson, Slutkin & White, LLC who has personally represented thousands of clients at the preliminary hearing stage, I am often asked by clients to explain exactly what is a preliminary hearing in Maryland?

In the Maryland criminal justice system, a preliminary hearing may occur when a defendant is charged with one or more felonies. In criminal cases in Baltimore City, preliminary hearings are automatically scheduled in all criminal cases. The practice in all other Maryland counties is to only schedule a preliminary hearing upon request of the defendant. Criminal defendants must make the request within ten days of the arrest or file a motion for good cause with a judge.

Preliminary hearings are conducted in the Maryland District Courts. If a judge finds probable cause, the case is sent (held over) to the Circuit Court for arraignment and possible trial. If the judge does not find probable cause that a felony has been committed by the defendant, then felony is dismissed. If a defendant is also charged with one or more misdemeanor, those charges remain and will be set for trial on another day at the District Court level.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on July 16, 2008 in Proof

Maryland Criminal and /DUI/DWI Attorneys frequently represent individuals who are charged with driving under the influence of alcohol, DUI, or driving while impaired by alcohol, DWI, by Maryland Transportation Authority Police or Maryland State Troopers. In many of these cases the entire stop is videotaped by the State Trooper or MTA Officer and this video tape can be subpoenaed by the Maryland Criminal/DUI/DWI Attorney. In a recent DWI case that I had in Baltimore County District Court, my client had blown just a .07 and insisted that he had not failed the field sobriety tests as the MTA Officer who stopped him had claimed in his report. To be fair to the officer, he did not claim that my client had done terribly on the field sobriety tests but had nonetheless concluded that he had failed. After being retained by my client I immediately issued a subpeona decus tecum for not only the video tape but for the MTA’s General Orders regarding the operation of dash board video cameras known as MVR equipment.

Soon I received a letter from the MTA claiming that the video camera had not been operational on the evening that my client was arrested, along with a copy of the general orders relating to the use of MVR equipment. At trial in the District Court for Baltimore County, my client was faced with a rebuttable legal presumption that he was driving while impaired based upon the intoximeter .07 blood alcohol content result. I was obviously unable to present the video to contradict the officer’s testimony, so instead I cross examined him with the general orders which stated in pertenent parts, that the objective is the “accurate documentation of events, actions, condition and statements made during arrests and critical incidents, so as to enhance the officer’s reports, collection of evidence and testimony in court”. The orders also stated that the “MVR equipment shall be used on every traffic stop” and that it is officer’s responsibility to insure that the equipment is working prior to beginning his or her shift and if it is not working to report this condition to the officer’s supervisor by “written documentation”. On cross, the officer admitted that he had not checked the equipment prior to beginning his shift, much less reported the fact that it was not operating by written or any other means of communication to his supervisor as required by the general orders. I also pointed out several discrepancies between the officer’s report and his testimony and had him highlight parts of the field sobriety tests that my client had performed to his satisfaction.
I then argued to the court that the video would have been particularly helpful in a case with a blood alcohol reading this low and a significant disagreement between the parties as to my client’s performance on the field sobriety tests. The State argued that the MTA was not required by law to video tape dui/dwi stops and accordingly the judge should place no weight on the fact that a recording was not made in this case. The Judge disagreed with the State and ruled that the MTA’s failure to follow their own procedures rebutted the legal presumption that my client was impaired. The court went on to find my client not guilty citing the numerous discrepancies between the officer’s original report and his testimony as well as the officer’s testimony that the client had performed some parts of the field sobriety tests correctly.

Continue Reading ››