Archive for the ‘Maryland’ Category

Not Amusing – Assumption of Risk, Contributory Negligence Not Applicable to Injured Two Year Old; Triable Issues RE Accident (MD)

October 26, 2015

McNeill v. Trimper’s Rides of Ocean City, Inc. (Maryland)
(trial court disposition)

A two-year-old boy went to an amusement park under the watch of his uncle.  He was on a ride for young children when the rider operator stopped the ride to remove another rider.  When the ride stopped, the boy apparently thought the ride was over and go out of his seat.  The ride operator then resumed the ride and the it struck the boy.  The boy’s father sued the amusement park, alleging that the ride operator negligently failed to insure that the boy was safely out of the way of danger before putting the ride back into motion.  The defendant filed an answer which included the affirmative defenses of assumption of the risk and contributory negligence.  Defendant also argued that the lawsuit was barred by the statute of limitations.

Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that the defendants’ affirmative defenses of assumption of the risk and contributory negligence were inapplicable because the boy was only two years old.  Plaintiff further asserted that under Maryland law, any negligence on the part of the child could not be imputed to a parent or caretaker.  The defendant’s opposition to the motion conceded “that the affirmative defenses of statute of limitations, contributory negligence, and assumption of the risk do not apply on the present record.”  However, the District Court explained that the concession did not create a basis for an award of summary judgment in favor of plaintiff because it was not a res ipsa loquitor case and the plaintiff still needed to prove the elements of negligence.

Neither party had been able to locate and depose the operator of the ride at the time of the incident.  Additionally, the boy’s uncle was the only available eyewitness in the case, but his view of the accident was obstructed and he could not testify as to what exactly had happened.  The Court noted that the plaintiff may eventually prevail at trial, but that it could not, by way of a motion, resolve factual disputes as to how the incident occurred.   The Court also ruled that the lawsuit was not time-barred.

 

Shooting Blind

August 1, 2012

Blind Industries and Services of Md. v. Route 40 Paintball Park (Maryland)
(A legally blind individual was denied the chance to play paintball at the defendant’s facility, and the plaintiff advocate group filed a claim on his behalf alleging a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”); the defendant failed to produce evidence regarding a prior personal injury civil suit and the plaintiff filed a motion to compel, which was denied.)

In its demand for production of documents as part of discovery in the litigation, the plaintiff advocate group requested “[a]ll Documents and Communications relating to complaints, grievances, citations, or claims made against the [defendant] by any person for . . . negligence of any type, or safety hazards of any type.”  After the defendant served its responses, the plaintiff noted that the defendant had failed to produce documents relating to a tort action it had discovered alleging unsafe conditions at the defendant’s paintball fields.  The defendant argued that the prior lawsuit was not relevant to the plaintiff’s ADA claim.

The District Court ruled that the defendant was required to only produce copies of any publicly filed documents pertaining to the prior lawsuit.  The Court explained that requiring the defendant to conduct an extensive review and production concerning prior cases “would violate the principles of proportionality.”  Although there is a relatively low standard of relevance required for discovery, the Court felt it was too much of a burden on the defense to produce more than what was part of the public record.  The defendant did contend the blind individual’s visual impairment “posed a safety concern,” but the connection of that allegation with prior claims of unsafe conditions was clearly limited.  The fact that the documents sought by the plaintiff also implicated the attorney-client privilege played a role in the Court’s decision.

As part of its motion to compel, the plaintiff also sought further responses from the defendant regarding the factual basis underlying the defendant’s affirmative defenses, asking that the affirmative defenses be stricken if additional information was not provided. However, the Court found the initial responses, “[t]aken in totality,” to be sufficient.

NOTE: This is certainly a positive decision from a defense perspective, considering the broad standard of “relevancy” in discovery.  Defendants are always concerned about a plaintiff’s ability to make their life unnecessarily difficult (and costly) via the discovery process.  It appears that a fair balance was reached in this instance.