Personal Injury Case Law

Court Holds Grocery Store Liable for Maintenance Worker’s Negligence

July 24, 2018 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

In a recent personal injury case, a state appellate court held that a grocery store could be held liable for a plaintiff’s injuries that were caused by an independently contracted maintenance worker’s failure to clean up a puddle of soapy water after mopping the floor. The case presents an interesting and important issue for Washington, D.C. personal injury victims because it illustrates under what circumstances a business owner can be held liable for the negligence of others.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff was shopping at the defendant grocery store when she slipped and fell in a puddle of soapy water. Evidently, the puddle formed after the maintenance worker had mopped the store’s floors the evening before.

The maintenance worker did not work for the defendant grocery store, but for a company that the grocery store had contracted with to perform all the store’s cleaning. So the grocery store contracted with the cleaning company to perform the cleaning services, and then the cleaning company hired the maintenance worker as an independent contractor to perform the actual cleaning.

Court Applies “Sudden Emergency Doctrine” in Recent Truck Accident Case

July 17, 2018 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Earlier this month, a state appellate court issued a written opinion in a personal injury case discussing what that court called the “sudden emergency doctrine.” The court explained that the doctrine applies when a defendant is faced with a sudden emergency, and if it applies, it excuses the defendant from exercising reasonable judgment. Ultimately, the court concluded that the defendant met the elements of the affirmative defense, and dismissed the plaintiff’s claim. The case presents an interesting issue for Washington, D.C. car accident victims in that it discussed under what situations a defendant’s potentially negligent conduct may be excused.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff was getting on the highway when the driver that was behind her quickly passed her, making an obscene gesture as he passed. The passing driver then slammed on his brakes, causing the plaintiff to quickly apply her own brakes in order to avoid an accident. The car immediately behind the plaintiff also applied the brakes, and was able to stop in time to avoid an accident.

The defendant truck driver was driving behind the third car in line, and despite braking and sounding his horn, was unable to stop in time. The defendant crashed into the car in front of him, and that car was pushed into the plaintiff’s vehicle.

Court Permits Premises Liability Case to Proceed Toward Trial on Plaintiff’s Own Testimony

July 10, 2018 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Earlier this month, a state appellate court issued a written opinion in a personal injury case requiring that the court determine if the trial judge properly granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment in the plaintiff’s premises liability lawsuit. Ultimately, the court concluded that the plaintiff’s testimony created a genuine issue of material fact, necessitating a jury trial. Thus, the court reversed the lower court’s decision to grant the defendant’s motion.

The case is important for Washington, D.C. personal injury victims because it illustrates the summary judgment standard, as well as the evidence necessary to survive this type of challenge by the defense.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff was shopping at the defendant hardware store when he caught sight of a heavy object out of the corner of his eye falling to the ground. The object made contact with the back of the plaintiff’s leg, causing him to fall and sustain serious injuries.

Plaintiff’s Premises Liability Case Dismissed Based on Her Knowledge of Icy Entranceway

June 25, 2018 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Earlier this month, a state appellate court issued a written opinion in a personal injury case that raised an important issue that often comes up in Washington, D.C. premises liability lawsuits. The case presented the court with the issue of whether a plaintiff’s knowledge of the hazard that caused her fall was fatal to her claim. Ultimately, the court determined that the plaintiff’s knowledge of the hazard precluded any liability on the defendant shop-owner’s part.

The Facts of the Case

On a cold January morning, the plaintiff was running an errand for her employer which required her to pick up an order at the defendant’s shop. The plaintiff arrived at the shop and as she approached the front door, noticed that there was a puddle of water on the pavement at the base of the stairs leading up to the entrance. The plaintiff then noticed that there was a spigot that had been left open and was dripping, resulting in a slippery hazard.

The plaintiff made it by the icy patch and up the stairs, at which point she informed an employee of the puddle. The employee explained that someone had left the spigot open so the pipes wouldn’t freeze, and instructed the plaintiff to exit out a set of rolling doors along the side of the building. However, the employee told the plaintiff not to let anyone else know that he permitted her to leave through that door, because it could result in him being fired.

Court Determines Employer Does Not Have a Duty to Protect Employee-Plaintiff Outside the Scope of Employment

June 18, 2018 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Recently, a state appellate court issued an opinion in a wrongful death case brought by the estate of a woman who was hit by a train after being told to leave her workplace while intoxicated. The court had to determine if the estate could prevail in a negligence lawsuit based on the fact that the woman’s employer provided her with alcohol, knowing she was an alcoholic, and then ejected her from the premises. Ultimately, the court concluded that the duty an employer owes to an employee does not extend beyond the scope of employment and rejected the estate’s lawsuit.

The case presents an interesting issue for employees injured in Washington, D.C. workplace accidents that were caused by a third party.

The Facts of the Case

The deceased employee worked for a company that maintained a bar on the premises. Employees were encouraged to stay after work and have a drink, in hopes that the employees would stay at work longer and produce more output.

Proving a Washington, D.C. Premises Liability Lawsuit

June 11, 2018 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

While it is true that landowners have a duty to ensure that their property is safe for all invited guests, the mere fact that someone was hurt on another party’s property is not enough to establish that the property owner is responsible for the victim’s injuries. In order to succeed in a Washington, D.C. premises liability lawsuit, a plaintiff must establish certain elements.

The duty of care owed to a guest by a landowner is determined by the relationship between the two parties. For example, a social guest is owed a greater duty of care than a trespasser. Similarly, someone visiting a property for commercial purposes (i.e., a customer) is owed a greater duty of care than a social guest. Customers are considered invitees under Washington, D.C. premises liability law, and they are owed the highest duty of care.

In order to establish that a landowner is liable for a plaintiff’s injuries, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant knew or should have known about the hazard that caused their injuries. A recent opinion shows how courts view these claims, as well as common arguments made by landowners.

Court Reverses Summary Judgment in Favor of Plaintiff in Recent Premises Liability Lawsuit

June 4, 2018 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Recently, a state appellate court issued an opinion in a personal injury case that presented an interesting issue that will be relevant for many Washington, D.C. slip-and-fall accident victims. The case discusses the threshold issue in many premises liability cases, specifically, the quantum of evidence necessary to survive a defense summary judgment challenge.

Summary Judgment

Generally speaking, summary judgment is a process by which a party asks a court to make a legal determination based on the pleadings. Essentially, when a party asks the court to grant a motion for summary judgment, the party is claiming that by looking at the uncontested evidence, the other party cannot prevail as a matter of law. Importantly, summary judgment is not appropriate when the opposing party can establish that there is a contested material fact.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff was shopping with her husband at the defendant grocery store. The couple put several bottles of juice in their cart, and then the plaintiff separated from her husband to find a restroom.

Court Reverses Jury’s Zero-Dollar Damages Award Based on Finding That It Was “Clearly Inadequate”

May 23, 2018 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Recently, a state appellate court issued a written opinion in a personal injury case raising an issue that occasionally arises in Washington, D.C. medical malpractice cases. Specifically, the court was tasked with determining if the jury’s zero-dollar damages award was sufficient or if the plaintiff’s motion for a new trial should be granted. After reviewing the evidence, the court concluded that the jury’s award was “clearly inadequate,” given the facts that were accepted as true.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff, an elderly woman, woke up one day with a terrible headache accompanied by vomiting and diarrhea. After two days, the plaintiff’s symptoms did not subside, and she had her husband take her to the emergency room at the defendant hospital. Believing that she may have had a bad case of food poisoning, the woman explained her symptoms to the intake nurse, including her headache.

Throughout the plaintiff’s stay at the hospital, she complained of a headache and other various gastrointestinal issues. However, the intake nurse failed to note that the plaintiff was complaining of a headache. Thus, the plaintiff was diagnosed with high blood pressure with diarrhea and vomiting with no particular cause and was discharged with instructions to make an appointment with a primary care doctor for a follow-up.

Court Excuses Plaintiff’s Untimely Filing Based on Dentist Fraudulently Concealing Potential Malpractice

May 2, 2018 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Recently, a state appellate court issued a written opinion in a personal injury case that raised an issue that is very important for Maryland medical malpractice plaintiffs to understand. The case presented the court with the opportunity to discuss whether a plaintiff’s late-filed medical malpractice case should be permitted to proceed despite its untimeliness because the defendant acted to cover up his potential liability.

Ultimately, the court concluded that the plaintiff’s visit to another doctor who worked with the defendant to effectuate the defendant’s care plan did not provide the plaintiff with actual notice of the defendant’s malpractice. Thus, the plaintiff’s lawsuit was timely.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff, who was suffering from serious dental issues, was a patient of the defendant dentist. The defendant created a care plan and, in March 2006, referred the plaintiff to a specialist who was to perform certain procedures, including placing dental implants.

Maryland Statute of Limitations and Discovery Rules

April 24, 2018 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

When someone is involved in a Maryland accident due to another person’s negligence, they may consider filing a lawsuit against the at-fault party. There are many procedural rules that must be followed when pursuing a case of this nature. One of the initial issues a potential plaintiff must consider before filing a lawsuit is whether they are in compliance with Maryland’s statute of limitations.

In Maryland, a plaintiff’s claim must be filed within three years of the date the claim “accrues.” In many cases, the case “accrues” when the accident occurs; however, “accrual” is actually a complex legal term that is often the subject of much litigation. This is where Maryland’s discovery of harm rule comes into play.

Maryland Discovery of Harm Rule

While accrual may refer to the date when the plaintiff’s injury actually occurred, this is not necessarily the date of the accident. This situation may arise when the plaintiff’s injury could not have reasonably been discovered until sometime after the accident. In these cases, the statute of limitations does not begin until the injury was discovered.