Maryland Law Update | Personal Injury Appellate Opinions

Tort law in Maryland is constantly evolving. This area of the Help Center is designed to educate both our clients and other attorneys about the recent evolution in our law. If you are handling civil claims in Maryland, you should know these cases.

This is one resource of many our law firm provides online to help lawyers get better prepared for trial.

• Rankin v. Brinton Woods (2019) (for the first time, Maryland finds a nursing home arbitration clause unconscionable)
• Summers v. Nationwide (2019) (what is the statute of limitations for an uninsured motorist case in Maryland?)
• Gallagher v. Mercy (2019) (court uses “one satisfaction” rule to boot a medical malpractice case where the same injuries were claimed in an auto tort claim)
• Armacost v. Davis (2019) (court affirms plaintiff’s malpractice verdict, rejecting the doctor’s claim that the jury instructions were flawed because they included general negligence instructions before instructing jurors on the applicable standard of care)
• Barbosa v. Osbourne (2018) (puts to rest many ridiculous contributory negligence arguments defense lawyers make in medical malpractice cases)
• Davis v. Frostburg Facility (2018) (a cautionary tale for plaintiffs’ lawyers who file suit against health care providers without going through Health Claims because they assume the case does not sound in malpractice)
• Dunham v. UMMS (2018) (another cautionary tale, this one involving waiting until the last minute to file a medical malpractice claim)
• S.H. v. United States (2017) (tough law on applied to a birth injury case on the foreign country exception under the Federal Tort Claims Act)
• Copsey v. Park (2017) (gives malpractice defendants free rein to point to settled defendants at trial)
• Henneberry v. Pharoan (2017) (breach of contract in a medical malpractice case)
• Peeler v. FutureCare (2016) (Miller & Zois’ appellate victory against a nursing home trying to assert that a nursing home arbitration agreement preempts our client’s ability to bring a civil lawsuit)
• Lisy Corp v. McCormick (2016) (the mechanics of what is required to plead a jury trial)
• Falls Garden Condominium Association v. Falls Homeowner’s Association (2015) (not a tort case but goes to question of when is a settlement when there is a dispute of the details)
• Keller v. Serio (2014) (what can we say to the jury in an uninsured motorist case?)
• University of Maryland Medical Systems v. Gholston (2012) (Maryland Court of Special Appeals affirms birth injury verdict in Baltimore City)
• Garrity v. Injured Workers’ Fund (2012) (whether a third party tort case might also be a workers’ comp case)
• Spangler v. McQuitty (2012) (Maryland high court affirmed informed consent birth injury verdict)
• Swartzbaugh v. Encompass (2012) (Carroll County uninsured motorist case involving the first-named insured provision)
• Muti v. University of Maryland Medical Systems (2012) first Maryland appellate opinion that discusses dealing with “use plaintiffs” in wrongful death/survival action cases in Maryland
• Muti v. University of Maryland Medical Systems (2011) (Maryland Court of Special Appeals opinion)
• Markevicz v. Garcia (2012) (U.S. District Court case underscoring the difficulty of meeting gross negligence standard)
• Griffin v. State (2011) (overview of how Maryland courts are going to view social media evidence at trial)
• Falik v. Holthus (2010) (our law firm’s appellate victory requiring Defendant’s expert to produce financial information)
• (2010) (malpractice cap remains firming in place in all Maryland personal injury cases, including malpractice claims, according to 2010 Maryland Court of Appeals opinion)
• University of Maryland Medical Systems v. Waldt (2009) (malpractice case on qualifications of an expert to testify at trial under 20% rule)
• Romero v. Brenes (2009) – ruling on what type of evidence is permissible to demonstrate speed and presumptions in single-car accidents.
• Pulliam v. Maryland Motor Vehicle Administration (2008) – MVA does not have liability for negligently allowing a driver to keep his license
• Marcantonio v. Moen (2007)  – delay in diagnosing cancer medical malpractice case in Anne Arundel County
• American Powerlifting Association v. Cotillo (2007) – assumption to the risk case involving a powerlifting injury in Calvert County
• Boone v. Goldberg (2006)  – informed consent medical mistake case that also discusses the impeachment of expert witnesses)
• Mahler v. Johns Hopkins
  University (2006)  – Baltimore medical malpractice case that discusses what is required to get an informed consent case to a jury.
• McNeill v. Food Lion (2006) (case site pending) – The court overturned the trial judge’s decision to allow Defendant to exclude an expert’s testimony based on deficient expert disclosures when no objections to the disclosures were made during discovery.
• Mayor and City Council of Baltimore v. Hart (2006) – Written Baltimore City police standards for the police officer’s duty of care is going through an intersection are admissible to the level of care required by that officer in an emergency.
• Harleysville Mutual Ins. Co. v. Zelinski (2006) – In a Cecil County truck collision case, the court found there was no coverage, holding that a named driver exclusion is valid in a commercial truck insurance liability policy.
• Mason v. Lynch, 388 Md. 37, 878 A.2d 588 (2005) – In a Prince George’s County case, the court considered and then rejected the Davis v. Maute.  The court ruled that required expert testimony must first establish a causal link between the damages to the vehicles and the injuries to one of the drivers for photographs of the accident to become admissible.
• Stearman v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 381 Md. 436 (2004) – This case deals with the question of whether an insurance company in Maryland can exclude or limit auto insurance coverage in an action brought by one family member against another in the event of a car accident.
• Davis v. Slater, 383 Md. 599, 861 A.2d 78 (2004) – This case settles the question of whether the ad damnum may be altered to terminate the defendant’s right to a jury trial. The court found that any party can plead a jury trial, regardless of the amount of controversy.
• State Farm Mutual Auto Insurance Co. v. Crisfulli, 156 Md. App. 515, 847 A.2d 504 (Md. Ct. App. 2004) – a good discussion of the interpretation of Maryland law of per accident/per occurrence policy limits language.
• Maryland Patients’ Access to Quality Health Care Act of 2004 – In an emergency session of the legislature, the Maryland Patients’ Access to Quality Health Care Act of 2004 was passed over Governor Ehrlich’s veto. The bill freezes the amount of compensation a jury can award for pain and suffering damages in a Maryland medical malpractice case.
• Fry v. Carter, 375 Md. 341 (2003) – Case articulating new Maryland law on the unavoidable accident jury instruction (elimination instruction).
• Lai v. Sagle – Medical malpractice and evidence of prior negligence or lawsuits against the defendant doctor
• Andrade v. Housein, 147 Md. App. 617 (2002) – Discusses whether there is an evidentiary presumption of negligence in Maryland accident cases when a motor vehicle is lawfully stopped on a highway and that vehicle is suddenly struck from behind by another vehicle.
• Fister v. Allstate Life Ins. Co., 366 Md. 201 (2001) – Opinion interpreting the language of a life insurance policy involving the question of the definition of suicide in Maryland.
• Hartford Ins. Co. v. Manor Inn. 335 Md. 135, 642 A.2d 219 (1994) – Discusses foreseeability in negligence cases in Maryland.
• Myers v. Bright, 327 Md. 395 (1992) – Discusses if/when speed alone can constitute contributory negligence in motor vehicle accident cases.
• Bangeura v. Taylor, 312 Md. 609, 624 (1988) – Discussing standards for remittitur and standards for considering an appeal of punitive damage awards in Maryland.
• Monongahela R. Co. v. Black, 235 F.2d 406 (4th Cir. 1956) – 4th Circuit case with favorable language for a plaintiff for a motion for remittitur.
• Heffner v. Admiral Tax Serv., Inc., 196 Md. 465, 77 A.2d 127 (1950) – case discussing the rules for motor vehicles when entering an intersection with a green light.