Case # Case Name 75-2541-00 Angela Baylor v.


D.H. Services, Inc.


Counsel for Appellant Area of Law


Benjamin Boscolo 301-220-0050


Negligence/Civil Procedure (Rule 2-507)


76-2542-00 Allen Henville v. Southwest Airlines, Inc.


Cynthia Young 410-269-7699


Workers Comp – Going and Coming Rule


77-2594-00 Virginia Cherry v. Mayor Steven Kleeman and City Council of Baltimore


410-752-1220


Sovereign (Governmental) Immunity


78-2606-00 Sue Ann Absolon v. Martin Freeman Paul Justin Dollahite, et al. 301-315-0200


Contributory Negligence/ Summary Judgment


Beard/Montgomery County


Bolinger/Baltimore County


North/Anne Arundel County


Judge Jurisdiction


Lamasney/Prince George’s County


Issues


Did the trial court err in applying Rule 2-507 to plaintiff’s complaint and dismissing the lawsuit after the statute of limitations had run where timely service on the defendant did not occur in part because the corporate defendant (the maintenance company at Landover Mall) changed its name, its corporate identity and registered agent, thus preventing prompt service of process?


Did the trial court err in granting summary judgment for the employer/insurer ruling that an airline employee who is injured while entering an employee parking lot on air- port property is deemed to not have sustained a compensable injury under the Workers Compensation Act?


Plaintiff sustained personal injury at the Waxter Center for Senior Citizens in Baltimore City when an object suspended from the ceiling fell and struck her on the head and neck. Was the operation of the Center by Baltimore City a pro- prietary function and did the trial court err in dismissing plaintiff ’s complaint based on the doctrine of governmen-


tal immunity?


Did the trial court err in ruling that the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law when she was injured while crossing Rockville Pike initially on a “walk” sign that subsequently began to flash “don’t walk” when she reached the median. MUTCD regulation 4d-2 states in part: “the ‘don’t walk’ indication, while flashing, means that a pedestrian shall not START to cross the roadway in the direction of the indication, but that any pedestrian who has partly completed his crossing during this steady walk indication shall proceed to a sidewalk or to a safety island.”


79-2646-00 Jeff Messing v. Bank of America, N.A.


80-2654-00 Lawrence Mize v. Jesse Hoskins, et al.


81-2658-00 State Farm


Insurance Companies v. Carol Weishaar


eff Messing


410-576-8338 Commercial Transactions/ Civil Procedure


Michael Marshall


410-685-2022 Employment Law/ Civil Procedure


Walter Gillcrist, Jr. 301-654-0896


Insurance/Procedure


82-2827-00 Council of Unit Owners Barry Steelman of South River Condos v. 410-321-4740


Heritage Harbour, LLC, et al. Compulsory Arbitration/ Waiver


83-2836-00 Western MD Health John Robb, Jr. Systems v. Dolores Michaels, 301-722-5511


P.R. of Estate of John Imes Estates and Trusts/ Civil Procedure


84-2868-00 Brenda Neal v. Erie Insurance Group


Mark Herman 410-837-2144


Motor Vehicle/Phantom Vehicle/Objects


McCurdy/Baltimore City


Leasure/Allegany County


Silkworth/Anne Arundel County


Galloway/Carroll County


Noel/Baltimore City Noel/Baltimore City


Did the trial court err in construing the commercial law article requirement of “reasonable identification” to include a thumbprint if demanded by a drawee to whom a check is presented for payment, even though other reasonable and customary documentary forms of identification were prof- fered?


Did the trial court err in denying plaintiff’s motion for production of documents seeking a police officer’s test scores and other documents related to the police department’s lieu- tenants’ examination to establish a meaningful challenge to the examination’s validity?


Did the trial court err in dismissing State Farm’s complaint for declaratory judgment on the issue of coverage for the defendant below because of Maryland’s “potentiality rule” as articulated in the Brohawn decision (276 Md. 396), and in ruling that prosecution of the declaratory judgment ac- tion would interfere with the defense of the underlying tort case?


Did the trial court err in ruling that the defendant’s partici- pation in litigation for 15 months did not constitute waiver of the arbitration provision in its sales agreement, which applied to only one of the defendants, and in belatedly or- dering arbitration of the dispute?


Did the trial court abuse its discretion in entering judg- ment in favor of the personal representative when the hospital’s attorney appeared 11 minutes late for the hear- ing and in not granting the hospital’s motion to alter or amend the judgment when it learned that the hospital’s employee had been present in the waiting room with the necessary records but did not know that the case had been called before the court?


Did the trial court err in directing a verdict for the defen- dant insurer holding that the object in the roadway, which caused plaintiff to swerve and strike the guardrail, did not give rise to a UM claim against a phantom vehicle because res ipsa locquitor did not apply and plaintiff failed to prove that the object came from a phantom vehicle?


22


Trial Reporter


Fall 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