Recent Verdicts and Settlements (Continued from page 45)
country “illegally” he probably would not have earned the income projected by the plaintiff’s economist. Because there were numerous defendants in the case and mediation by two members of the Supe- rior Court was unable to get the case resolved with any offer higher than $315,000.00, plaintiff chose to arbitrate the case on a ‘high-low’ fashion with bind- ing arbitration. The arbitrator was not advised of the “high-low” of $750,000.00-$250,000.00.
Plaintiff ’s Experts: I. Michael Leitman, Kris Sperry, M.D,. Lloyd Saberski, M.D.
Defense Experts: Paul Cunningham, M.D., Michael J. Rosner, M.D., Henry Silverman, M.D.
Verdict: $600,000.00
Plaintiff ’s Counsel: Barry J. Nace (MTLA member) Paulson & Nace ,Washington, DC
Defense Counsel: Albert D. Brault, M. Kathleen Parker, Brault, Graham, Scott & Brault
Premise Liability
Christopher Carla Conor v. Ronald Rieley, et al. Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County No. C-1999-573355 OT
Facts: Plaintiff was at a surprise birthday
party for a family member in July of 1999. At that time he was on a deck which stood approximately 12 to 14 feet above the level of a pool area. This deck was surrounded by a wooden railing. As the Plaintiff leaned against the railing to throw a wa- ter balloon at someone who was in the pool, the entire section of railing gave way, causing him to fall on both heels, shatter- ing both of these. He also rolled on his right arm at that time, breaking the ra- dius. All experts agreed that the railing was built in violation of both the build- ing codes then and there in effect and standard building practices.
Allegations of Liability: The defendants alleged that they were not liable because they had not obtained a licensed contrac- tor to build this deck and riling. The contractor at this time is out of business. The plaintiffs contended that since the building permit was obtained in the name of the owner, the owner had a duty to supervise, which was non-delegable. The only case in Maryland that has addresses public policy behind enactment of the building code shifts responsibility for a violation to the homeowner for the pro- tection of the public at large.
Plaintiff’s Experts: Mark Myerson, M.D. (Orthopaedic Surgeon) Baltimore, Mary- land; Estelle Davis (Rehab Specialist) Lanham, Maryland;
Thomas Borzilleri (PE) Towson, Maryland.
Defense Experts: Allen Holt (Ortho- paedic Surgery) Annapolis, Maryland
Settlement: Case settled for $500,000 with a Joint Tortfeasor’s Release, the policy limit
of the Defendants, Mr. & Mrs. Rieley. Default judgment has been entered against the builder, Greater Annapolis Builders, which is now defunct, and declaratory judg- ment has been filed against the builder’s insurance carrier, Erie Insurance Company, attempting to secure coverage.
Special Remarks: The effect of securing a building permit when the construction violates the building code on traditional social guests’ liability.
Plaintiff ’s Counsel: Kevin J. McCarthy (MTLA member) Lanham, MD
Defense Counsel: Richard S. Schrager, Armstrong, Donohue, and Seppos, Rockville, MD
________ Jonathan Pearce v. James Dow, et al.
Facts: Plaintiff was visiting a single family dwelling rented by a friend. Plaintiff has little memory of the accident and is not an effective communicator. Plaintiff’s signifi- cant other found him near the base of the rear porch of the premises and also found that the handrail had broken from the porch at its attachment points. Residence was built in 1948 and current owner purchased the residence in 1978. Current owner did not install the handrail.
Allegations of Liability: Theory of liability was that the owner knew or should have known of the existence of a defect with the handrail. No clear evidence of knowledge existed and tenant (Plaintiff ’s friend) in- sisted that he was unaware of any problem with the handrail. Plaintiff ’s argument on liability was that inspection of the handrail indicated that it was rusty at the point of attachment and that the owner knew or should have known of this condition. Li- ability complicated the fact that Plaintiff is a large individual weighing in excess of 250 pounds at time of accident. Primary injury sustained was C 3-4 disk herniation with central cord syndrome, necessitating anterior cervical cord decom- pression with fusion.
Plaintiff ’s
hospitalization was complicated by G tube improperly placed in peritoneal cavity, sub- stantially prolonging his hospital stay. Plaintiff ’s injuries have substantially re- solved.
Plaintiff ’s Expert: David F. Hunter, A/A, Hord, Copland, Macht, 111 Market Place, Suite 710, Baltimore, MD
46 Trial Reporter
(Continued on page 48) Spring 2001
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56