by

The Maryland Court of Appeals made us all a bit safer by its ruling in MVA v. Dove. I like safer. Whether there was justice in this individual case, I have no idea.

Facts of Dove

In Dove, the defendant rear-ends a car while driving his motorcycle on Route 4 in Calvert County. When the Calvert County Sheriff’s Office arrived at the scene, they found the Defendant being treated by the EMT. The officer noticed red, watery eyes and a strong odor of alcohol coming from him. He used the “I had one beer” defense and said he was afraid of needles so he couldn’t take a blood test to determine his BAC.

Continue reading

by

A teenage girl portrayed as a spoiled out-of-touch teen beauty queen on ABC’s “Wife Swap” filed a $100 million lawsuit against the network, alleging the show is a charade.

Really? Who would have imagined?

Obviously, this is the dictionary definition of a frivolous lawsuit on so many levels. It is obviously easy to blame the girl who said on the show that she feels “sorry for people that are not gorgeous people.” But, really, why was this suit filed? Dollars to donuts, it was because a lawyer wanted to get his/her name in the paper. In terms of public relations for lawyers, this is the kind of stuff that balances out in the public’s mind thousands of hours of charitable efforts and other good works that lawyers do.

by

The Baltimore Examiner has an interesting commentary on the appointment of newly appointed Anne Arundel County District Court Judge Thomas V. Miller III, who is the son of Senate President Thomas V. Mike Miller, Jr. The author’s question is essentially asking is whether “blatant nepotism” is a good thing. Isn’t it great to set up a straw man like that? How do you lose the argument when it is framed that way?

“I think he probably will be a good judge, but the appearances just don’t look right,” Harris said. Dr. Harris expressed his strong view by not voting. Brave. Reportedly, he was originally planning to express his opposition by shooting Mike Miller a sideways glare but chickened out.

Okay, I’m obviously making that up, but you get the point. The author is a Republican trying to make a point. The Republican hero of the article was Andy Harris, who did not even vote on Judge Miller’s confirmation. If Judge Miller’s qualifications were legitimately at issue, what would that say about the Republicans in the state senate who unanimously approved him?

Continue reading

by

A divided Maryland Court of Appeals took away a Baltimore County jury verdict against Bank of America on Thursday in a case relevant to personal injury lawyers to the extent that it underscores when expert testimony may be needed at trial.

This case appears to be the classic “money-grubber woman takes advantage of an old man” story. BOA allowed said money-grubber to add her name on to the man’s account. After his death, his son looked at the bank statements and brought a claim on behalf of the Estate against BOA for breach of contract and negligence for allowing the woman to be added onto the account in the first place.

The jury bought it, awarding $23,475 on the breach of contract claim and $7,600 on the negligence claim. The Maryland Court of Special Appeals reversed, finding that expert testimony was necessary to establish BOA’s standard of care when adding an individual’s name to a bank account.

Continue reading

by

The Maryland Court of Special Appeals decided this week in Benway v. Maryland Port Administration where a pro se Plaintiff raised an interesting yet still useless question: Is it an error to rule on a summary judgment motion filed after the scheduling order deadline?

The question is interesting because the current version of Maryland Rule 2-501 does not contain the phrase, “file at any time,” because amendments to the Rule in 2004 took the language out in light of the nearly universal use of scheduling orders. But, the question is ultimately just an academic exercise because if you win on “the motion was filed late” argument, you are still going to lose a directed verdict because the evidence never comes out better than “most favorable to the Plaintiff.” So Plaintiff’s winning this motion is only a temporary stay of execution.

by

Little Ash Wednesday controversy in Iowa that is a very big deal to some: After lunch, while prosecuting an attempted murder case, the prosecutor went to Ash Wednesday mass and returned with ash on his forehead.

For mainstream Catholics, this is one of the few ways we have to publicly celebrate our faith. Many faiths of the world have ways you can, for lack of a better phrase, wear your religion on your sleeve at trial. Jewish lawyers have yarmulkes, female Muslim lawyers have headscarves, some Sikh attorneys have turbans, etc. Would a judge ever ask any of these people to remove their religious garb? Of course not. Yet, in this case, the judge asked the prosecutor to remove his ashes. The prosecutor removed the ashes, and the trial continued.

Do I think this was unfair? Yes. But the judge was in a no-win situation. It would also be unfair for the state of Iowa to piggyback off of the prosecutor’s show of piety because religious faith influences jurors. (If you have any doubt about this, read the section on religion in David Ball and Don Keenan’s book Damages.) So, on balance, I think the judge did the right thing and picked the integrity of a serious criminal trial over the prosecutor’s expression of faith. Still, I don’t like it.

Continue reading

by

The Maryland Court of Appeals unanimously affirmed a jury award against the Baltimore City Police Department in Houghton v. Forrest on Friday. Here were the facts:

Houghton observed a drug sale on North Eutaw Street in Baltimore City through a security camera feed. Three persons participated in the sale: the drug dealer, a male purchaser, and an alleged female purchaser who was wearing a white shirt or coat. As the transaction was being completed, Houghton contacted an arresting team, comprising Officer Timothy Williams and another officer, and instructed them to arrest the participants in the sale. The arresting team took the dealer and the male purchaser into custody, finding drugs on each of them, but the alleged female purchaser had left the scene. Houghton then witnessed, through the video feed, the alleged female purchaser embrace a second woman nearby. Houghton assumed that the embrace concealed the transfer or sale of drugs from the female purchaser to the second woman. This second woman was wearing a black jacket, dark jeans, and carrying a red umbrella. Houghton moved the camera back to the arrest, and in doing so, lost sight of the second woman.

After monitoring the arrest, Houghton scanned the area for the female purchaser and the second woman. The female purchaser was no longer in view, but Houghton could see someone whom he believed to be the second woman. In fact, the person in Houghton’s view was Forrest, who was standing some distance away at a nearby bus stop. Forrest was wearing different colored pants and jacket than the second woman, though both were carrying red umbrellas. Houghton instructed Williams to arrest Forrest. Williams approached Forrest, and asked if she had “anything illegal” on her person; Forrest said she did not, and consented to a search of her person. The search revealed no contraband, but Houghton nonetheless instructed Williams to arrest Forrest. Williams suggested that Houghton review the video footage to make certain that Forrest was indeed the second woman. Houghton did not do so, but nonetheless confirmed that Forrest was to be arrested. Williams handcuffed and arrested Forrest, over Forrest’s protests, and placed her with the other arrestees. Forrest testified at trial that she overheard Williams discussing the possibility that he may have arrested the wrong person, and that Williams was instructed to take her into custody nonetheless. Forrest was moved to Central Booking, though she was not summoned to court and charges against her were eventually dismissed.

Continue reading

by

The Maryland Daily Record reports today that an “extremely remorseful” circuit judge in Charles County would accept a public reprimand for deflating the tire of a woman improperly parked in a restricted area of the Charles County Courthouse, according to documents filed by his attorney with the Maryland Commission on Judicial Disabilities. The judge pleaded guilty last October to vehicle tampering, a misdemeanor. The judge paid a $500 fine and was ordered by Judge Robert C. Wilcox to “write a heartfelt letter of apology” to the tire deflator.

At this point, it seems like we are burning unnecessary tax dollars on further proceedings. The judge was thoroughly embarrassed and either (1) feels legitimate remorse and realizes he did the wrong thing or, (2) feels in his heart he did nothing wrong and that woman had it coming (which is obviously how he felt in the long moment that he had to make the decision). But, either way, and we will never know which, no one is suggesting is a removable offense. And he has already paid the price of national publicity. So let’s hope it is the former and move on.

by

Maryland Insurance Commissioner Ralph S. Tyler is stepping down early next year to become general counsel at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. That is a big-time job.

Ralph has never turned down an invitation to speak at my insurance law class, and he just seems like a good guy. I have disagreed with some decisions that came from his office, but I think losing him is a blow to the Maryland Insurance Administration, both from the perspective of insurance companies and consumers/injury victims. This is probably the best compliment you can give an insurance commissioner.