Medical Malpractice
Appellate Watch
Cary J. Hansel
661-676 Maryann Knopp v. Pulte Home Corp.
Francis A. Pommett, III (410) 685-0888 Negligence (Slip & Fall)
Te Honorable Tomas E. Marshall Harford County Circuit Court
Te plaintiff was tripped by uneven pavement.
Subsequently, the owner of the premises painted an orange line in the same area to highlight the unevenness. At trial, the owner testified that at the time of the incident, the unevenness was plainly evident to pedestrians. Te plaintiff sought to admit the subsequent remedial measure for purposes of impeaching the statement that the different elevations were evident at the time of the fall. Te plaintiff’s theory is that if this problem was already apparent, then there would be no need for the remedial measure and, therefore, it should come in for impeachment purposes. Te trial court refused to admit the evidence and the plaintiff appealed, raising this issue and others.
662-2435 Heritage Harbor Community Association v.
David I Abse, et al.
Michael L. Rowan (301) 762-1696 Property
Te Honorable Ronald A. Silkworth Anne Arundel County Circuit Court
A retaining wall collapsed causing significant damage
to surrounding properties. Te issue in the case is whether the wall was owned by a home owner’s association or a particular member. Tis deceptively simply issue lead to a detailed analysis of a number of property law principles and factual determinations resulting in the Court’s ruling that the wall belonged to the HOA. Among other issues, the Court determined that the wall was partially on HOA property and that the purpose of the wall was to benefit the original builder. Terefore, the Court held that the HOA owned the wall and owed the adjacent homeowners the duties to maintains, repair and replace it.
663-02734 Ira D. Papel v. Brian A. Cyrus
Ravid A. Roling 410-263-5900 Medical Negligence
Te Honorable Susan Souder Baltimore County Circuit Court
In a medical negligence case, the doctor/defendant
requested that the venire be asked whether any member had a bias against doctors. Te Court refused to make this request during voir dire. A plaintiff ’s verdict was returned and the defense hired an investigator to interview jurors. Te former jury foreperson stated during this investigation that he believed doctors to be “condescending,” “belittling,” and that they were “more interested in golfing than in patient care.” He also related a recent negative experience concerning a friend of his at a hospital. Te question on appeal is whether it was reversible error not to permit the requested voir dire.
Trial Reporter / Summer 2010 59
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