This page contains a Flash digital edition of a book.
Anatomy of a Civil Trial


783-01960 Carlisa Kent v. Prince George’s County, Maryland


Bruce M. Plaxen (410) 730-7730 Insurance/Contract/MVA


Te Honorable Larnzell Martin, Jr., Esquire


An undercover police car crossed the center line and catastrophically injured another driver. Te vehicle driven by the officer was rented from Enterprise and Enterprise was self-insured, under the terms of the rental agreement, for up to $2 Million. Te contract contained both rental provisions and insurance provisions. Te rental portion of the contract included an indemnity clause through which the county agreed to indemnify Enterprise for the negligence of County employees. Te trial court held this provision applicable and ruled against coverage. Te County appealed, arguing that the indemnification provision was part of the rental portion for the contract and did not apply to the insurance provisions which would be rendered meaningless in many cases by the indemnification provision.


Pushkin & Pushkin, Inc.


Actuaries & Consultants since 1979


• Pension Divorce Valuations •


401(k) Marital Tracings


• Wrongful Death & Personal Injury Analyses • Actuarial Valuations • Expert Testimony • Loss of Earnings Studies


www.pushkinandpushkin.com Member of the National Association of Forensic Economics


Pushkin & Pushkin, Inc. 30 E Padonia Rd, Ste 406 •Timonium, MD 21093


Baltimore: 410.561.1945 • Washington: 301.951.9430 62 Trial Reporter / Spring 2012


784-1433 Khana Soleimanzadeh v. Montgomery County, Maryland


Jeffrey S. Larson (301) 441-4900 Real Property


Judge not listed


In this condemnation proceeding, the Court took the issue of just compensation from the jury, granting a motion for judgment as to the amount under the theory that only the County had offered evidence on this point. Te appellant notes that the issue is left to the sole discretion of the jury and that the jury was entitled to believe all, some or none of the County’s evidence and to reach its own conclusions.


785-01253 Maryland National Capital Park and Planning Commission v. Michelle Latimer


Christine M. Collins (240) 777-6700 Negligence/Assumption of the Risk


Te Honorable Toni E. Clarke Circuit Court for Prince George’s County


At issue is whether the plaintiff assumed the risk of slipping on “black ice” given prior knowledge acquired the same day as the fall that: 1) the area traversed was very wet; and 2) the temperature had dropped to a point at which freezing of that water could be expected.


ECONOMIC VALUATIONS


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