Appellate Watch by Cary J. Hansel
The Appellate Watch alerts our Amicus Committee about cases important to MAJ and advises members of issues pending before the Court of Special Appeals.
Case Name/Case # Michelle Collins v.
National Railroad
Appellant C ounsel/ Area of Law
P. Matthew Darby, Esq. 410-243-9400
Passenger Corporation Personal Injury 546-02154
Judge/ Jurisdiction
The Honorable John P. Miller Baltimore City
Issues
An Amtrak railroad worker was electrocuted while working as an electric traction lineman on the overhead wires strung above Amtrak trains. The case was brought in part under the Federal Employers Liability Act. At issue is whether the jury should have been instructed that assumption of the risk is not a defense in a claim arising under the FELA. The case also raises issues related to summary judgment granted to the defense under the Locomotive Inspection Act. Finally the appellant argues that the trial court abused its discretion in redacting a statement taken from a railroad supervisor responding to the conditions under which the decedent was asked to work as follows: “Ok, Jesus, that’s unbelievable.”
Natasha Hudson v. Denise F. O’Brian, Esq. B&G Foods, Inc. 547-00493
410-296-1440
Workers Compensation/ Personal Injury
The Honorable Brett W. Wilson
Dorchester County
An individual alleges that her arms were caught in a pickle machine and she sustained sever injuries while working at B&G Foods. The sole issue on appeal is whether the individual was an employee and thus barred from suing B&G Foods by the exclusivity provision of the Workers Compensation Act. The facts alleged are that the appellant worked for Barrett Business Services Inc., an agency that, pursuant to a contractual relationship with B&G Foods, interviewed and hired workers to work at the plant, paid the related Workers Compensation insurance, and terminated their employment if and when necessary.
Salim Inc. v. Rainbow Adult Day
Jeffrey L. Forman, Esq. 410-823-5700
Center of Baltimore Civil Procedures/ County, LLC 548-01886
Temporary Restraining Order
The Honorable Juditch C. Ensor Baltimore County
A pharmacy alleges that a nursing home interfered with its business relationship with the residents of the home by failing and refusing to permit residents to submit prescrip- tions to the pharmacy. This was purportedly done in an effort to steer business to another entity. The pharmacy sought a temporary restraining order which was denied after the court’s finding that there was an adequate remedy at law. The appellant argues primarily that Maryland Rule 15-502 does not permit the denial of a motion for tempo- rary restraining order as a result of there being an adequate remedy at law unless the defendant first posts a bond. No bond in this case was set or posted. As a result, the appel- lant argues that the Circuit Court lacked discretion to deny the relief sought.
62 Trial Reporter Winter 2009
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 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76