KramersLaw.com

Personal injury and insurance law attorneys share their expertise in Maryland accident lawsuits, trial litigation and other legal news.

The "Seacret" is Out: Trademark Infringement

Sometimes, David really can beat Goliath in court. At least, when the slingshot hits the core of trademark infringement.

More ...
537 Hits

Strict Liability for Pit Bull Attacks: A Doggone Shame?

In an opinion sure to infuriate pit bull owners and scare landlords, Maryland’s highest court has made owning pit bulls the equivalent of possessing canine TNT.


Landlords, beware.  In the case of Tracey v. Solesky, the Maryland Court of Appeal's opinion imposed strict liability upon pit bull owners for injuries caused by their dogs.

By a vote of 4-3, the Court held that such strict liability extends to "a landlord who has the right and/or opportunity to prohibit such dogs on leased premises."  Reviewed several recent pit bull attacks that have left significant scars on their victims and the law, the four-judge majority did not believe that any dog within this breed could be considered safe. "Because of its aggressive and vicious nature and its capability to inflict serious and sometimes fatal injuries, pit bulls and cross-bred pit bulls are inherently dangerous."

Although there is no law on the books banning the breed, or making it a crime to own one, the Court handed down "a strict liability standard in respect to the owning, harboring or control of pit bulls and cross-bred pit bulls" even if the owner had no knowledge of any otherwise dangerous tendencies of his or her particular pet.

Coming to the defense of the breed, three judges thought their brethren were barking up the wrong tree.  In their dissent, these jurists expressed the view that the "majority opinion delivers an unenlightening and unworkable rule regarding mixed-breed dogs. How much 'pit bull' must there be in a dog to bring it within the strict liability edict? How will that be determined? What rationale exists for any particular percentage of the genetic code to trigger strict liability?"

Which side of the fence are you on?  Should pit bulls be innocent until proven dangerous?  Is this a doggone shame, or was the majority right to hold these dogs on a short legal leash?

You may read the Court's decision here. What do you think?

Tracey v. Solesky
April 26, 2012

More ...
432 Hits

A Rush To Litigation: Football Concussion Suits

It seems that nearly everyday, a new lawsuit is filed against the National Football League by groups of former players who allege that they have suffered debilitating brain injuries as a result of the policies and practices of the NFL.

More ...
428 Hits

The Mysterious Flying Bus

If buses could fly, must I prove why before I have a case I can try?


According to the Maryland's highest court, the operator of a bus that became "airborne" while traveling on Route 50 West in Prince George's County cannot be held liable based upon that fact alone.  Rejecting the claims of two passengers injured when a Washington, D.C. bus made a crash landing into a tree off the side of the road, the Court of Appeals found that evidence to be insufficient to warrant an inference of negligence on the part of its driver.

Rather than call witnesses to explain how the bus took off to such unfriendly skies, Plaintiffs Wayne and Jaron Singleton argued that, because such a single-vehicle accident ordinarily would not occur without some fault on the part of the bus driver, the defense should have the duty to prove otherwise under what is known as the legal doctrine of res ipsa loquitor (literally, "the thing speaks for itself").  But a unanimous court refused to apply this doctrine, particularly in a case where Plaintiffs' counsel failed to have any actual witnesses speak about what may have caused this unusual incident.

In the Court's view, the doctrine would only apply under circumstances in which one could rule out causes other than driver error.  "With regard to a negligence action based on a perceptually single-vehicle accident, [the doctrine] will be available 'if the accident or injury is one which ordinarily would not occur without negligence on the part of the operator of the vehicle' and 'the facts are so clear and certain that the inference [of negligence] arises naturally from them.'"

Although the Court recognized a number of older cases in which such inferences were made in single-vehicle accidents, it refused to draw this inference where there were a number of witnesses to the accident available to testify.  But because of their attorney's "apparent tactical decision to avoid reasonably available witnesses," Plaintiff's "unnecessarily barebones case-in-chief failed to eliminate sufficiently other causes of the accident, and failed to evince that the bus driver's negligence was the most probable causative factor."  Rather than shift this burden of proof to the defense, the Court refused to let Plaintiffs "merely ... prove that the bus left the road and rest, taking advantage of res ipsa loquitur to plug the hole in the doughnut" of their case.

CASE DISMISSED.

District of Columbia v. Singleton
March 20, 2012

More ...
498 Hits

The Mysterious Flying Bus

If buses could fly, must I prove why before I have a case I can try?


According to the Maryland's highest court, the operator of a bus that became "airborne" while traveling on Route 50 West in Prince George's County cannot be held liable based upon that fact alone.  Rejecting the claims of two passengers injured when a Washington, D.C. bus made a crash landing into a tree off the side of the road, the Court of Appeals found that evidence to be insufficient to warrant an inference of negligence on the part of its driver.

Rather than call witnesses to explain how the bus took off to such unfriendly skies, Plaintiffs Wayne and Jaron Singleton argued that, because such a single-vehicle accident ordinarily would not occur without some fault on the part of the bus driver, the defense should have the duty to prove otherwise under what is known as the legal doctrine of res ipsa loquitor (literally, "the thing speaks for itself").  But a unanimous court refused to apply this doctrine, particularly in a case where Plaintiffs' counsel failed to have any actual witnesses speak about what may have caused this unusual incident.

In the Court's view, the doctrine would only apply under circumstances in which one could rule out causes other than driver error.  "With regard to a negligence action based on a perceptually single-vehicle accident, [the doctrine] will be available 'if the accident or injury is one which ordinarily would not occur without negligence on the part of the operator of the vehicle' and 'the facts are so clear and certain that the inference [of negligence] arises naturally from them.'"

Although the Court recognized a number of older cases in which such inferences were made in single-vehicle accidents, it refused to draw this inference where there were a number of witnesses to the accident available to testify.  But because of their attorney's "apparent tactical decision to avoid reasonably available witnesses," Plaintiff's "unnecessarily barebones case-in-chief failed to eliminate sufficiently other causes of the accident, and failed to evince that the bus driver's negligence was the most probable causative factor."  Rather than shift this burden of proof to the defense, the Court refused to let Plaintiffs "merely ... prove that the bus left the road and rest, taking advantage of res ipsa loquitur to plug the hole in the doughnut" of their case.

CASE DISMISSED.

District of Columbia v. Singleton
March 20, 2012

More ...
446 Hits