Case Name/Case #
Appellant C ounsel/ Area of Law
Melissa Weckesser v. Patrick N. Wysong
E.S.Protect Inter-
(410) 243-9400
national Security, Inc. Negligence 439-1475-06
Judge/ Jurisdiction
Albert J. Matricciani Baltimore City
Issues
In this case, a security company was escorting an ambulance on the grounds of a secured government facility. As part of the security features associated with the facility, cars were required to drive through a gate with physical barriers called bollards that automatically lower when a vehicle approaches from the inside, and rise after the vehicle has passed. On numerous prior occasions, the ambulance driver had fol- lowed the security car through the gate without incident. On this occasion, the security vehicle passed, but when the ambulance was partially through the gate, the bollards began to rise, lifting the ambulance into the air, and causing significant bodily harm to the occupants. The issue in the case is whether the lower court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of the security company, under the theory that the security company owed no duty to protect or warn the ambulance driver of the danger involved with the security system at the facility.
Jin Ho Choi v. Manhee Lee 440-1475-07
Jonathan S. Shurberg, Esq. (301) 585-0707 Tort/Assault
Terrence J. McGann Montgomery County
In this case, an automobile salesman who was a black belt in the martial arts admitted liability in connection with assault- ing the defendant. The defendant, who was an employee at the automotive dealership, inadvertently hit the edge of the show room wall while moving a Mercedes Benz at Rockville Motors in Rockville, Maryland. As a result, the plaintiff alleged that his boss became enraged and beat him. The plaintiff’s expert at trial testified as to the future economic loss that would be suffered by the plaintiff. However, plaintiff’s expert allegedly never established that the future economic loss was caused by the actions of the plaintiff. In particular, the defense argues on appeal that said testimony should have been stricken, because it was not offered to a reasonable degree of medical certainty. This argument was rejected by the trial court and the jury awarded a significant verdict. The appeal also raises whether the jury was appropriately permitted to consider punitive damages under the facts of this case.
Martin Gregory Dugan v. RLO Contractors, Inc. 441-17-06
Eugene I. Kane, Jr., Esq. (301) 963-6554 Civil Procedure
G. Edward Dwyer, Jr. Frederick County
Whether a party who is served with a complaint and a sum- mons which has become dormant must file a responsive pleading under the Maryland Rules. In this case, the sum- mons had become dormant, and no answer or responsive pleading was filed as a result. The Court ultimately dismissed the plaintiffs’ case for lack of jurisdiction, due to the failure to serve the summons. While not raised in the brief, apparently, the statute of limitations had run in the interim, precluding refilling of the case.
Summer 2007
Trial Reporter
71
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