Case # Case Name 85-2877-00 Emma Bugeja v.


Ross Stores, Inc.


Counsel for Appellant Area of Law


Eric Slatkin 301-989-8800


Negligence/Slip & Fall/ Evidence


86-2883-00 Debra Woodard v. Krista Fendt and State Farm


James Debelius 301-840-2232


Uninsured Motorist/ ”Owned but Otherwise Insured” Exclusions


87-2922-00 Betty Manders v. Town of Riverdale Park


Blaine Kolker 410-730-7737


Slip & Fall/Governmental Immunity/Sufficiency of Affidavit


88-2939-00 Mars Super Markets, Inc. Michael Comeau v. Charles P. Dix


Nance/Baltimore City


410-752-5383 Worker’s Comp/Evidence


Martin/Prince George’s County


Rowan/Montgomery County


Judge Jurisdiction


Miller/Montgomery County


Issues


Did the trial court err in granting a directed verdict for the defendant despite another customer’s testimony as to the slippery condition of the recently waxed floor where at least one other customer had slipped? Did the trial court err in not allowing the EMT who responded to the scene to tes- tify as to his slipping in the area ruling that the only relevant area was the immediate vicinity where the plaintiff had fallen?


Did the trial court err in granting State Farm’s motion for summary judgment on the grounds that uninsured motor- ist coverage was not available to the plaintiff because she was injured in a vehicle “owned but otherwise insured” with another carrier? This exclusion found in State Farm’s policy is not specifically authorized by statute (article 19-509(f)) and plaintiff contends that this exclusion should be void as a matter of law.


Did the trial court err in granting summary judgment for the defendant, Town of Riverdale park, ruling that the de- fendant had established governmental immunity based on an affidavit which did not discuss the factors necessary to establish governmental immunity: 1) public benefit; 2) no profit; 3) health and welfare; and 4) no element of private


interest?


Did the trial court err in upholding a jury verdict in this worker’s compensation appeal from a denial by the WCC of benefits, where the only medical testimony relating to the cause of the cervical and lumbar facet syndromes by the treating physician was that “it’s possible that his employ- ment made the claimant’s back condition get progressively worse” and that “his spine problems…could have arisen out of his employment?”


(Continued on page 26)


Fall 2001


Trial Reporter


23


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