628-2961 Robert Leight v. Kay Warwick
Thomas B. McCarron (410) 539-5040 Negligence
The Honorable Steven G. Chappelle Circuit Court for Charles County
The plaintiff was injured while scanning merchandise for a factory card outlet where she worked. The defendants are a freight transportation company which transported merchandise to the store and the driver for that company.
The driver and the plaintiff routinely worked together unloading merchandise for the store. The merchandise came in boxes stacked on palettes and wrapped in plastic to height of approximately 7 feet.
Neither the freight company nor their employee stacked the boxes on the palette or wrapped them.
Instead, the shipper had exclusive control over that process.
The first issue on appeal is whether the freight company is liable for a number of boxes that fell injuring the plaintiff after the freight company employee had cut the plastic wrapped around the boxes.
The freight company argues that because the boxes were stacked by the shipper, and not the freight company, the fall was not necessarily the fault of the freight company.
The second issue on appeal is whether a doctor who performed a defense medical exam was properly excluded when he was not listed as a witness by the defense but proffered to allegedly only give factual testimony in rebuttal to the plaintiff’s version of her injuries.
629-00236 RRC Northeast LLC v. BAA Maryland Inc.
G. Brian Buscy, Esq. (202) 887-1500 Civil Procedure
The Honorable Paul A. Hackner Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County
This contract case was dismissed because the plaintiff failed to attach a copy of the contract on which the claim was based to the complaint or to exactly quote the language of the contract in the complaint itself. Instead, the plaintiff alleged facts showing the existence of a contractual obligation and the defendant’s breech of that obligation.
The question is whether this is sufficient under Maryland Rule 2-322(b)(2) to survive a motion to dismiss. The second issue presented on appeal is whether it was an abuse of discretion for the trial court to deny leave to amend so that the complaint could be attached or quoted in an amended pleading.
Trial Reporter / Winter 2010 57
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