Massachusetts has new opinion on snow and ice slip and falls. Maryland slip and fall law in snow and ice cases is far less hospitable.
July 2010 Archives
If you are getting ready to give a closing argument in a car accident case (or any tort claim) and are looking for idea, we have sample closing statements available, two of which led to seven figure verdicts.
Lockshin v. Semsker set forth some disconcerting parameters for how to deal with the medical bills owed that are reduced because the health care provider waived the fees on the case in Maryland. Semsker did not cover all of the potential scenarios of how defendants can reduce what it is required to pay in medical bills but it does indicate that it would be through a post-verdict hearing process.
California thankfully appears to be going in a different direction on this issue.
In 2008, the United States Coast Guard counted 4,789 accidents in which 709 people were killed, 3,331 people were injured. Not surprisingly, the month with the most boat accident deaths is August. The economic loss that comes with boat accident is also staggering: $54 million alone in just recreational boating accidents.
Alcohol was found to be a factor in 17% of boat accidents. Thankfully, only one Maryland death in 2008 was attributable to alcohol.
You can find more boat accident statistics here.
The Washington Post reports on a moped accident death in Maryland. From the report, it sounds like a classic "left turn, did not see the moped/bike/motorcycle accident.
In these cases, the Defendant is responsible for the death of the moped driver, assuming the facts are as I think they are. But juries hate bikes, motorcycles and, particularly, mopeds. Why? Because jurors can imagine missing motorized bikes and bicycles and because everyone has seen these vehicles used inappropriate on the roadways. Almost invariably, regardless of the facts, these cases are a fight.
Can you recovery in a Maryland accident case against two different defendants? Generally, the answer is no. But, n Maryland, the policy against double recovery does not apply when a judgment against the original negligent part for the original tort only has been satisfied, at least when the subsequent tortfeasor has not been joined in that suit.
