July 2009 Archives

On July 21, 2009, the Maryland Court of Appeals issued a ruling that will have a dramatic impact on how the cap on noneconomic damages is applied to tort cases.  The Court, in Green v. N.B.S. Inc., held that claims brought under the Consumer Protection Act are to be considered torts, and hence subject to the cap limiting awards on noneconomic damages.  The argument set forth by the Appellant contended that the cap on noneconomic damages is only applicable to torts that are considered common-law torts, and not to civil wrongs like the statutory violation in this case. 

Ultimately, the ruling by the Court of Appeals will have the lasting effect of broadening the applicability of the cap on noneconomic damages.  The Appellant's contention in this case was that the cap only applied to torts like negligence.  With this ruling on the books, the cap on noneconomic damages will apply to all torts, be they from civil rights violations, automobile accidents or medical malpractice. 

A recent case in Howard County, Maryland demonstrates how serious courts take the situation where a person drinks, gets in a car, and has an accident that leads to the death of another human being. In the case of Jose Santiago, he and a group of friends all went out drinking. An accident occurred, and Santiago's blood alcohol was measured at .09, just above the State's legal limit of .08.

While driving, Santiago lost control and crashed into a truck. Two of the passengers, both friends, were killed. Santiago was charged and plead guilty to two counts of negligent vehicular homicide while driving under the influence of alcohol. Santiago was in this country illegally and U.S. Immigration placed a detainer on him.

Santiago blamed snow for causing the accident. Families of the two men who were killed asked that Santiago be deported instead of jailed. In fact, both families went as far as to go through an official procedure in Mexico to "renounce any illegal act" on Santiago's part and asked that he be deported back to his mother. Despite the families request, the Court sentenced him to three years in jail. Only after he serves the sentence will he be deported.

Most states including Maryland, Virginia, and Texas, all impose jail sentences in automobile accident cases, where the driver was intoxicated, and caused an accident that resulted in the death of another person. Further, most courts will force the illegal immigrant to serve jail time before allowing deportation.

Everyone who is hurt in an accident believes they are entitled to recover. Recoveries vary greatly from one jury to another, as well as from one insurance adjuster to another. Some attorneys believe that's just the way the system operates, by chance. Not true, a true understanding of what motivates people to give money in accident cases makes all the difference in the world.

First, the adjuster or juror must be persuaded that the money will help. For example, it will go to medical expenses, future care, or lost wages. That's the easy one. Second, and more difficult, is convincing the adjuster or juror that they need to make up for the harm that was caused by the accident. To do this effectively the lawyer must understand what will emotionally move the person paying the money based on the facts presented. For example, was the defendant not acting responsibly, and worse did the defendant take actions to evade responsibility. If so, the argument for more compensation gets easier. Additionally, was the defendant dishonest, not sorry, callus, or hostile? All of the above are motivating factors to increase your recovery. To explore these motivating factors look closely at the defendants overall conduct immediately after the accident, during the deposition or even at trial.