Maryland Motorcycle Accident Lawyer Blog

Establishing Fault in a Maryland Motorcycle Accident

January 11, 2018 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

While many Maryland motorcycle accidents are clearly the fault of one party or another, other accidents present more a complex situation. For example, if both of the drivers involved committed a traffic violation, it may be difficult to determine which party should be held responsible. Similarly, if there are no witnesses to an accident other than the operators of the vehicles, this may create a “he said, she said” situation requiring additional investigation.

When it comes to establishing who was at fault for a motorcycle accident, the initial job rests with the police. However, in some cases, a police investigation comes up short, failing to name either party. Or in cases of a hit-and-run accident, the at-fault driver may not be located. In either event, an accident victim can always seek compensation through their own insurance policy. However, in some cases, an insurance company will deny a motorist’s claim, leaving them with no means of financial recovery.

If an insurance company denies a motorist’s claim or offers insufficient compensation to cover a victim’s injuries, the accident victim can file a personal injury claim. However, Maryland applies a strict legal doctrine when it comes to determining which parties are entitled to compensation. Under Maryland’s contributory negligence rule, only motorists who are completely free from fault are able to recover damages for injuries they sustained in an accident. Thus, it is very important that motorcycle accident victims reach out to discuss their case with an experienced personal injury attorney as soon as possible.

Bicycle Accidents on Maryland Roads

January 5, 2018 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Maryland bicycle accidents are occurring at a startling rate across the state. The majority of these accidents take place in larger urban areas, such as Baltimore or Washington, D.C., and most occur at intersections. Intersections present a particularly dangerous situation to bicyclists because many drivers are unfamiliar with the traffic laws as they pertain to bicyclists, and they assume that the bicyclist is going to yield to them. However, that is not what the law requires.

As a general rule, motorists must treat bicyclists as though they are any other vehicle on the road, with some exceptions. For example, motorists must take care in passing bicyclists and should leave ample room when pulling back in front of a bicyclist after passing. Additionally, motorists must leave at least three feet between their vehicle and the bicyclist. A driver’s failure to safely follow the traffic laws may result in their financial liability to anyone injured in an accident.

Settlement Reached in Bicycle Accident Case Involving Garbage Truck

Earlier last month, a settlement agreement was reached in a case involving a man who was struck by a garbage truck while riding his bicycle on the shoulder of the road. According to a local news report covering the accident and subsequent personal injury case, the parties agreed to settle the lawsuit for $2.6 million.

Court Upholds Defense Jury Verdict in Recent Motorcycle Accident Case Against Government Agency

December 27, 2017 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Earlier this month, an appellate court in Kentucky issued a written opinion in a motorcycle accident case that illustrates a very important principle that also applies to many Maryland motorcycle accident cases. The case required the appellate court to determine if sufficient evidence existed to support the jury’s verdict in favor of the defendant. Finding that sufficient evidence did exist, the court affirmed the jury’s verdict.

The Facts of the Case

A few days after a major wind storm, the plaintiff was injured when he struck a fallen tree in the middle of the roadway. The plaintiff filed a personal injury lawsuit against the county engineer, as well as the engineer’s supervisor, arguing that they were negligent in failing to follow their duty to maintain a clear roadway.

Initially, the engineer argued that he was entitled to government immunity because he did not believe tree removal to be a part of his job. However, that issue was appealed, and it was determined that the engineer was not entitled to government immunity merely because he was unaware of his full duties. After that decision, the case was sent back to the trial court to proceed toward trial.

Commuter Bicycle Accidents in Baltimore and Washington, D.C.

December 20, 2017 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Given the increase in gas prices as well as the increase in environmental awareness, more and more people are eschewing gas-guzzling cars and hopping on their bikes to get to work. Riding a bike to work comes with a number of benefits, including saving money, getting exercise, and developing a closer connection with the community. However, biking also comes with its share of hazards, especially when biking in urban areas.

Each year, there are over 800 Maryland bicycle accidents across the state, with over 650 of those accidents resulting in the bicyclist being injured. Unfortunately, the data also suggest that the number of bicycle accidents in Maryland seems to be increasing. While the most recent data suggests that bicycle fatalities are fairly low, this number is likely to increase as more people choose bicycles as a preferred method of commuting. Over 85% of those accidents occur in the metropolitan areas of Baltimore and Washington, D.C.

On top of the generally applicable traffic laws that apply in all situations, Maryland lawmakers have enacted several rules to protect bicyclists, including the following requirements:

Court Narrowly Interprets Immunity Statute in Recent Bicycle Injury Case

December 13, 2017 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Earlier this month, a state appellate court issued an opinion in a personal injury lawsuit that presented an interesting issue that many Maryland bicycle accident plaintiffs encounter when seeking compensation for their injuries. The case involved the interpretation of a recreational use statute and required the court to determine whether the trail where the plaintiff was injured was covered under the statute’s grant of immunity. Ultimately, the court concluded that the trail where the plaintiff’s injury occurred was not the type the legislature intended to include within the statute’s text. As a result, the plaintiff’s case was permitted to proceed toward trial or settlement negotiations.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff was injured while riding with a group of friends on a paved biking trail. Evidently, there was an area of the trail where the pavement had started to break away, due to vegetation that grew up through the pavement. The trail was paved and was painted with a yellow line to designate directional travel. The path was also used by an electric company to access power lines that ran to nearby neighborhoods. The path intersected not just with other mixed-use paths but also with several roads.

As the plaintiff was riding behind a friend, her friend fell off her bike, causing the plaintiff to fall as well. The plaintiff was seriously injured as a result of the fall and filed a premises liability lawsuit against the city that was in charge of maintaining the path.

Maryland Motorcycle Accidents Caused by Inattentive Drivers

December 6, 2017 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

The chances are that anyone who drives even a few miles a day has seen another motorist using a cell phone while driving. Despite the illegality of cell-phone use while driving, most motorists admit to using their phone at least occasionally while behind the wheel. Not only is using a cell phone while driving against the law, but it is also likely to cause a Maryland motorcycle accident.

To begin with, motorcycles are more difficult for motorists to see. Add to that a driver who is more focused on their cell phone than the road ahead of them, and the result is a greatly increased chance of being involved in a motorcycle accident. Of course, all Maryland drivers have an obligation to operate their vehicle in a safe manner, and a driver’s failure to do so may result in civil liability.

Maryland Motorcycle Accident Cases

In Maryland, anyone who has been injured in a motorcycle accident can bring a personal injury lawsuit against the party they believe to be responsible for their injuries. In order to succeed, an accident victim must be able to establish that the other driver was somehow negligent in the operation of their vehicle, and the other driver’s negligence caused the accident victim’s injuries.

Maryland Motorcycle Accidents Involving Semi-Trucks

November 27, 2017 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Semi-trucks present a danger to all motorists with whom they share the road. In part, this is due to their large and cumbersome size, which does not lend itself to being easily maneuvered in the event of an emergency situation. Additionally, the enormous size of these trucks creates large blind spots that can make it difficult for truck drivers to safely change lanes and make turns.

While all motorists are at risk of being involved in a Maryland truck accident, perhaps none face as high a risk as motorcyclists. With their slim profile, motorcyclists are too often not seen by motorists in cars, let alone truck drivers dealing with blind spots that are several times the size of cars. Despite the difficulties truck drivers face when operating their vehicles on a crowded highway, truck drivers are always required to operate their rig in a safe and responsible manner. This includes making sure that all blind spots are clear before making a turn or lane change.

When a Maryland truck driver fails to take the adequate precautions when changing lanes or turning, they may be held liable for any injuries that were caused as a result of their negligence through a Maryland truck accident lawsuit. These cases can present a number of complex legal issues, including the determination of which parties should be named in the lawsuit. In some cases, a truck driver’s employer can be named as an additional defendant, potentially increasing the likelihood of a full and fair recovery.

Young Drivers Present a Serious Danger to Maryland Motorcyclists

November 20, 2017 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

While all ages of drivers are capable of negligent driving, young drivers in particular present an especially high risk for Maryland motorcyclists. Indeed, it has long been understood that young drivers are responsible for the most Maryland motorcycle accidents when compared to other age groups. Some statistics have found that one in five teen motorists are involved in a collision of some sort each year.

Young drivers present such a high risk for a number of reasons. Of course, it goes without saying that young drivers have less experience driving. However, that factor alone does not totally account for the increased rate of accidents because new drivers who obtain a driver’s license later in life do not present as high a risk. Teens, as a group, are more likely to engage in several other risky behaviors while driving, including:

Driving while talking on a cell phone;
Texting while driving;
Talking to passengers in the rear seats;
Speeding;
Driving aggressively; and
Using poor judgment.

Can Parents Be Held Responsible for a Minor’s Accident?

In Maryland, a parent can usually only be held responsible for an accident caused by their minor child if the accident involves a crime. If there is no crime committed, it is likely that the parents of the minor will not be financially liable. However, to the extent that a child is on the parent’s insurance policy, the insurance company will be on the hook for the accident.

Motorcycle Accident Plaintiff’s Case Dismissed for Failure to Comply with Discovery Requests

November 13, 2017 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Earlier this month, an appellate court issued a written opinion in a motorcycle accident case illustrating what can happen if a party fails to comply with the pre-trial discovery process. While the decision was issued by a South Carolina court, the same principles apply in Maryland motorcycle accidents.

The case arose from a motorcycle accident that the plaintiff claimed was caused by the defendant’s negligence. After the case was filed, the parties each requested discovery from the other side. In the pre-trial discovery process, a party is able to request relevant information that it believes may be in the possession of the opposing side. Once a judge approves a discovery request, the party who has the information is required to pass it. A failure to pass the ordered discovery can result in various penalties, up to and including the dismissal of the plaintiff’s claim.

In this case, the defendant requested certain income tax documents from the plaintiff. The judge granted the defendant’s request and ordered that the documents be passed by December 17, 2015. About a year after the deadline, the defendant filed a motion to compel discovery with the court. The court granted the motion and also ordered that the plaintiff pay some of the defendant’s attorney’s fees that related to the prolonged litigation over the documentation.

Court Determines Motorcyclist Assumed Risk of Injury in Recent Dirt Bike Accident Case

November 6, 2017 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Earlier this month, an appellate court in California issued a written opinion in a motorcycle accident case requiring the court to determine if the plaintiff assumed the risk of injury involved in riding a dirt bike. Specifically, the court was tasked with determining whether the defendant’s reckless conduct exposed the plaintiff to risks above and beyond those normally encountered while riding a dirt bike. Ultimately, the court concluded that the plaintiff assumed the risk of injury by riding the dirt bike and that the defendant did not expose her to additional risks. This concept may be relevant to Maryland motorcycle accident victims as well.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff and the defendant were in a relationship. The plaintiff was new to riding dirt bikes when she met the defendant, but the two made the activity a joint hobby. One day, the couple decided to take about a two-hour ride to some dunes. The plaintiff was hesitant, and she explained to the defendant that she did not like riding in sand because it made her uncomfortable. Evidently, the defendant was present one time when the plaintiff fell while riding in sand.

The defendant “guaranteed” that there was a hard-packed dirt road the whole way and that the plaintiff would not have to ride in the sand. The plaintiff then reluctantly agreed to go.