to a lawsuit filed after October 1, 2001 regarding a cause of action that occurred before that date. The court also found that retroactive application of the law did not violate any state or federal constitu- tional provisions. Fry v. Carter (Court of Appeals, No.
113, September Term, 2002, Filed June 12, 2003, Opinion by Raker), reversed the judgment of the Court of Special Appeals and remanded the case to the Circuit Court for Montgomery County for fur- ther proceedings. Fry was killed while working on the side of a highway after being struck by roof trusses extending over the side of a flat-bed tractor-trailer oper- ated by Carter. The trial court gave an unavoidable accident instruction and the jury returned a verdict for the defendant. The decedent’s family objected to the in- struction and appealed. The Court of Appeals held that it was
reversible error to instruct the jury on un- avoidable accident. Most importantly, it stated that unavoidable accident instruc- tions should not be given in any negligence cases. Mason v. Lynch (Court of Special Ap-
peals, No. 849, September Term, 2002, Filed May 6, 2003, Opinion by Eyler, James), affirmed the judgment of the Cir-
cuit Court for Prince George’s County. Mason was injured during a chain reac- tion rear-end collision. A motion in limine was denied and photographs show- ing minimal damage were shown to the jury. The jury found the defendant li- able, but awarded no damages to Mason. On appeal, Mason argued that the trial
court should not have allowed the defen- dant to introduce the photographs and to use them to infer that Mason was not injured without expert testimony estab- lishing a correlation between the property damage and injuries. Mason also claimed that the trial court should have granted a new trial on damages because expert wit- nesses on both sides agreed that he had suffered at least some injury and, there- fore, the verdict of the jury was contrary to the evidence. The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the photographs and denying the motion for new trial as to damages. Subsequent History: Writ of Certio- rari was granted and oral arguments were held in October 2003. Boone v. American (Court of Special
Appeals, No. 1772, September Term, 2001, Filed March 26, 2003, Opinion by Hollander), reversed and remanded the
case to the Circuit Court for Baltimore City for further proceedings. Boone was injured while a passenger in a vehicle op- erated by her husband. Boone settled her claim with the tortfeasor’s insurance com- pany for policy limits. She then filed suit to recover UIM benefits from her insur- ance company. During opening statements, the jury was told that the tortfeasor’s insurance company had al- ready compensated the plaintiff. Boone was disappointed with the jury’s award and appealed it. The court addressed whether the trial court gave an appropri- ate instruction to the jury on how to assess damages in a UIM case. The court held that the jury should
have been instructed that the sum previ- ously recovered by Boone from the tortfeasor would be deducted from any award of damages. The opinion also pro- vided several, alternative jury instructions for use in a UIM case. Sherrod v. Achir (Court of Special Ap-
peals, No. 830, September Term, 2002, Filed February 28, 2003, Opinion by Eyler, James), vacated summary judgment and remanded the case to the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County for fur-
(Continued on page 6)
Fall 2003
Trial Reporter
5
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