Maryland Injury Lawyers Blog

By Kevin I. Goldberg

A lawsuit has been filed in Federal Court for the death of Karl Grimes, age 18, against the D.C. Government. Mr. Grimes was incarcerated at Oak Hill Youth Center which is the maximum security juvenile detention center for the District of Columbia. Oak Hill is located in Maryland, but is owned and operated by the District of Columbia Government.

According to The Washington Post, Mr. Grimes got into a fight with two other children at the detention center in 2005, and died the day before Thanksgiving in 2005 at Prince George's Hospital Center in P.G. County, Maryland. The lawsuit was filed against the D.C. Government and Prince George's Hospital Center for negligence, wrongful death, and survival. The attorney for Mr. Grimes's family is Greg Lattimer. The lawsuit alleges that the detention center had improper staffing and improper supervision to ensure the safety of the residents, and that there was an insufficient delay in providing appropriate medical care.

There is a long history of allegations of improper treatment of juveniles at Oak Hill Youth Center. In fact, the facility was the subject of a Consent Order and Receivership arising out of the Jerry M Case in Washington, D.C. When in law school, Kevin I. Goldberg worked at Oak Hill Youth Center through the D.C. Public Defender Service and represented juveniles in disciplinary proceedings within the facility. Children who are injured or killed while incarcerated have the right to file a lawsuit if their injuries are the result of negligence or the violation of their civil rights. These cases can be difficult to prove, and in Maryland the State of Maryland's Tort Claim Act (or Local Government Tort Claims Act) may provide immunities and a damage cap of $100,000.00 against State Officials.

There are also generally strict notice requirements for bringing negligence claims against the government. For example, in Washington, D.C. DC Code Section 12-309 requires that the Mayor and its designee be given written notice within 180 days of the negligent act. In Maryland, the Maryland State Tort Claims Act requires notice to the State Treasurer within 1 year. If the claim (in Maryland) is against a county, notice must be provided to the appropriate official within 180 days. As challenging as these legal cases are, with good lawyering, and careful selection of appropriate Defendants, it may be possible to overcome sovereign immunity and the various State Tort Claims Acts that protect municipalities and State Governments.

Possible causes of action against juvenile detention centers include negligence, assault, battery, violation of civil rights (under Federal Law and/or State Law), and if a death occurred, Wrongful Death and Survival. Hopefully, Mr. Lattimer will obtain a just result for the Grimes family. More importantly, hopefully as a result of this tragic incident, the D.C. Government will take care to be sure that children in its detention facilities are properly supervised and their safety protected.

A Baltimore County trial involving a pedestrian accident in a construction zone resulted in an interesting verdict this month. On November 5, 2008 a Baltimore County jury returned a defense verdict in a case tried under a high low agreement. Under the terms of the agreement, despite the defense verdict, the plaintiff will receive $250,000. The case involved a woman who was struck while illegally crossing the street in a construction zone.

The plaintiff's attorney alleged that the defendant construction company failed to ensure the safety of pedestrians through a Maintenance of Traffic Plan, and improperly placed barriers in the roadway. At the time of the accident, the plaintiff was crossing the street to catch a bus. The police investigation concluded that the plaintiff was at fault for crossing the intersection illegally. The plaintiff lost the trial. However, the attorney for the plaintiff, Nathaniel Fick, Jr., should be commended for obtaining $250,000 for his client even though the case was decided in favor of the defendant. Maryland is among a minority of states that still observe "pure contributory negligence." In effect, this makes fault in an accident all-or-none: if a jury finds the plaintiff even 1% at fault, the plaintiff is barred from recovery. Most jurisdictions have abandoned this harsh rule, and hopefully Maryland will one day follow suit, adopting instead the comparative negligence rule that has been adopted by a majority of states.

The contributory negligence law in Maryland means that accidents involving pedestrians are difficult to win: a skillful defense lawyer is often able to prove the minimum 1% fault on the part of the plaintiff. However, even with these difficult legal circumstances, our attorneys at Goldberg, Finnegan & Mester have had great success in litigating pedestrian accident cases. If you or someone you care about has been injured in a pedestrian accident, please feel free to contact us for a free telephone consultation.

The current crisis in Washington DC medical malpractice law is common knowledge. From attorneys, to medical professionals, to the average person on the street, it is well known that the nation is experiencing an overuse and abuse of the medical malpractice laws. This has lead to clogged court dockets, wasted tax dollars, and a decline in the confidence of the average citizen in the legal system of this country.

Except that it's not true.

What is true is that medical mistakes account for a remarkable number of deaths each year - more, even, than auto accidents. What is also true is that recent research has found that nearly all medical malpractice lawsuits filed in this country have merit, and are based on a serious and significant error in care resulting in injury or death. The idea that the majority of medical malpractice lawsuits are the product of trial lawyers' imaginations (and, some would say, avarice) has been effectively disseminated by the insurance industry in the hopes of generating "reform" that includes stricter limits on the criteria for filing a case. While the overarching public perception is that these types of reforms would be aimed at providing necessary limits on attorneys, in fact the primary beneficiaries would be the insurance companies who provide malpractice insurance to medical professionals: fewer suits means fewer settlements.

It is clear to see who gains, but who loses? The average citizen, of course. When explained in simple terms, who among us would be in favor of limiting the legal options of those affected by a phenomenon that kills more individuals than auto accidents? Taking also into account the recent findings that virtually all medical malpractice cases have merit and are not frivolous, the choice is a no-brainer. Medical malpractice laws are essential to retaining the checks and balances in our medical system. So don't be fooled, and don't be hesitant to exercise your rights if you've been the victim of a medical mistake.

If you or someone you know has suffered due to the negligence of a physician or other medical professional, we can help! Contact our Maryland Medical Malpractice Lawyers for a Free Case Evaluation today!

We are proud to congratulate attorney Kevin J. Finnegan on his recent appellate victory in the case of Rivers v. Hagner Management Corporation, et al. Mr. Finnegan's victory before the Maryland Court of Special Appeals will work to protect those parties injured due to the negligence of property owners. In this case, Plaintiff brought a negligence and premises liability action against the property owner in Prince George's County, Maryland and the landlord responsible for designing and maintaining the apartment complex in which Plaintiff resided. The Plaintiff suffered burn injuries in a fire in the residence.

In the early morning hours of June 19, 2003, Plaintiff discovered that there was a fire in his apartment building, in the entrance/exit stairwell, which was the only exit from the apartment building. In his attempt to flee the building, Plaintiff suffered second degree burns to both of his lower limbs, requiring multiple skin grafts and incurred approximately medical expenses.

In order to prove a negligence case, a Plaintiff must prove that the Defendant owed a duty of care, that the Defendant breached the duty of care, and that the breach in the duty of care was a proximate cause of the injury. Plaintiff alleged that Defendants owed him the following duties: To maintain the apartment building in a safe condition; to provide a safe and unobstructed means of exiting the building in case of emergency, and a duty to obey all local regulations. Plaintiff further alleged that Defendants failed to live up to these duties when only one exit from the building was provided. Plaintiff's position was that under the local fire code, two separate and distinct exits are required. Since only one exit was built into the building, and the fire was started at that exit, Plaintiff was not provided a second exit to escape the fire. This resulted in Plaintiff's injuries.

During the discovery phase of the trial, Plaintiff relied upon one particular expert witness, who testified that during an inspection of the apartment complex, a number of violations of the local fire code were discovered. These included the fact that Defendants violated Prince George's County, Maryland requirement that buildings such as this apartment complex have two separate exits. The expert testified that because there was only one exit, which was blocked at the time of the fire, Plaintiff was not given the chance to escape the fire before his injuries.

Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment in the Circuit Court for Prince George's County. Defendants alleged in their Motion for Summary Judgment that because the fire was started by an arsonist, it was not foreseeable by Defendants that an arsonist would start this fire, and that Plaintiff's injuries would result. Defendants relied upon a line of cases that dealt with the failure to provide sufficient security to protect residents from injuries caused by the criminal acts of third parties. Mr. Finnegan filed a Response to this Motion for Summary Judgment, outlining how this case was not an issue of negligent security, but rather centered upon Defendants' failure to provide the two separate and distinct exits as required by local regulations. After a hearing on the Motion for Summary Judgment, the Circuit Court for Prince George's County granted Defendants' Motion.

Undaunted, Mr. Finnegan filed a timely appeal to the Maryland Court of Special Appeals. On October 29, 2008, after reading the briefs of both sides and hearing oral argument, the Court of Special Appeals issued their ruling. The Court held that Defendants "had a duty to comply with the fire safety code, so as to minimize danger to its tenants from fires that might occur, regardless of their cause. The risk of fire is foreseeable." Specifically, the Court stated:

It is patent that [Plaintiff] is within the class of persons that the Fire Code seeks to protect, and that the injuries he suffered are the kind the Fire Code is intended to prevent. The purpose of the two-exit requirement of the Life Safety Code is to obviate the danger of an apartment building's "occupants attempting to use a single means of egress that is blocked by fire or smoke."...That is exactly what allegedly occurred in this case. It was eminently foreseeable that, if a fire, whatever its origin, blocked the single exit to the Property, the occupants would be burned as they attempted to escape via that exit. That is the precise contingency the two-exit requirement is intended to address. _________v. Hagner Management Corporation, et al, as reported by the Maryland Court of Special Appeals.

Therefore, the Court of Special Appeals sent the case back to the Circuit Court for Prince George's County for further proceedings.

This case is an important victory for all Maryland citizens. It also provides Maryland personal injury attorneys and lawyers with a better understanding of what they must establish to show that a particular statute applies, and that a statutory violation occurred. Under the Court's ruling, landlords are required to adhere to all local fire regulations, including those that provide separate and distinct exits.

This appellate case is also evidence that the attorneys and trial lawyers at Goldberg, Finnegan & Mester, LLC are willing to continue to fight for their clients even when facing long odds. It is often difficult to have a case reversed at the appellate level, yet Mr. Finnegan believed in his client, and his client's case. This belief and conviction resulted in this appellate victory, and allowed for his client's case to proceed to trial. If you or a loved one has been injured, or killed call the attorneys at Goldberg, Finnegan & Mester, LLC at 301-589-2999 today for your free telephone consultation.