Maryland Accident Lawyer Blog

Are red light camera pictures admissible at trial without an authenticating witness? At least one California court says no. You can read the opinion here.

A few times a week I talk with someone who was injured when the other driver ran a red light. (I literally just hung up 10 minutes ago with a motorcyclist from Michigan who was injured driving through Maryland.) The reality is that while no one wants to get a ticket from a cowardly, faceless camera, red light cameras save lives and decrease the number of serious injury and fatal car accidents in Maryland.

I don't think a Maryland court would rule the same way. I also think the California legislature should draft an evidentiary rule to solve this problem.

The Baltimore Sun has an article about a police officer who has been suspended after giving chase to a motorcyclist which resulted in an accident that killed the fleeing motorcyclist.

The Sun reports that Baltimore police are instructed to chase a vehicle only if the driver or passengers are believed to have committed a violent crime or pose a risk to public safety,

It has to be frustrating for police when motorcyclists drive by police at excessive speeds, thumbing their nose at law enforcement. The question is where to draw the line between trying to apprehend suspects and keeping reasonably safe the general public, the police officer and, yes, even the fleeing suspect. Personally, I have no idea where that line should be drawn or whether the police officer acted appropriately in this case.

Can you get a ticket for keeping on the tail lights Pontiac puts on in the factory? According to this blogger, a Maryland judge says yes.

The story sounds incredibly bizarre, including a report that the judge suggested the car be sold because this Pontiac does not comply with Maryland law.

There is no way to verify these types of Internet stories. Maybe it is more fun that way.

In Prince George's County v. Brent, the Maryland Court of Appeals answers the question that will probably never be asked again: can you sue the agent after a successful case against the master? (Sneak preview: the answer is yes.)

The case involves an accident at the Branch Avenue (Route 5) and Allentown Road (Route 337) interchange in Prince George's County against a police officer. Of course, when the Local Government Torts Claims Act is involved, plaintiffs' accident lawyers have to navigate through more hurdles than Bristol Palin's path to happiness. (Did you hear she is engaged? To Levi? Really, it's true! I read it in US Weekly.)

So, bizarrely, the Plaintiff tried the case against PG County alone and got a $230,000 verdict. But the verdict was reduced by the procedural hodgepodge of Maryland Code §5-524 of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article that limits the sovereign immunity waiver to the available insurance coverage in car accident cases. So Plaintiff goes back and gets a verdict against the police officer, trying the case solely on the issue of whether the police officer was responding to an emergency.

Really odd facts. It is a good case for plaintiffs although I cannot imagine when anyone reading this will actually use the opinion. I'm surprised the Maryland Court of Appeals took the case. Read the case for the rest of the details.

There are so many perils in dealing with claims against local governments. The law is against you from the start by cutting the statute of limitations and in the end by often limiting the amount of your recovery. Then there is the pain that comes from dealing with claims adjusters for the state who often seem to have no interest in what the trial value of a case may be.

This case highlights a final concern: getting approval from the local municipality, or whoever else, for settlement authority. It is like dealing with an insurance company times 1,000. Here, everyone agrees the case should settle... except the municipality.

Earlier today, I blogged about medical malpractice after an auto accident. The take home message was that malpractice after a car accident is foreseeable and the negligent driver is responsible for all of the harms caused by the accident.

One of our clients has an interesting issue that falls under the same logic. In this case, the car was destroyed not by the accident but, at least allegedly, by the negligence of the repair shop in fixing the vehicle. GEICO, being GEICO, has denied the claim. This is their denial letter.

GEICO is going to lose this claim but it is not going to happen without a lawsuit. This is the way it is in 2010.

• GEICO claims (an overview on dealing with GEICO)
• Property damage claims (how to handle)