Justia Lawyer Rating
Maryland Association for Justice
American Association for Justice
Top One
Super Lawyers
Top 100 Trial Lawyers

Earlier last month, a vehicle belonging to a D.C. Council Member was involved in a Washington, D.C. hit-and-run accident on Interstate 295, near Malcolm X Avenue SE. According to a local news report, the accident occurred just before midnight. An acquaintance of the Council Member was operating the vehicle, and the Council Member was not inside the car at the time of the accident.

Evidently, a BMW that was owned by the Council Member rear-ended a Toyota Camry that had three people inside. Initially, both vehicles came to a stop. However, from this point, each driver offers a different version of events.

The man who was rear-ended told police that the other driver provided him with two phone numbers and a name and then drove away. However, neither phone number was valid. The driver then called the police, who ran the name given by the other driver. Police could not find anyone who went by the name provided by the driver. The accident victim then showed police a photograph he took of the car’s license plate. Police later determined that the vehicle belonged to Council Member White.

One of the most important decisions any Washington, D.C. personal injury plaintiffs must make early on in the process is which parties to name as defendants in the lawsuit. Failing to name all potentially liable parties can have a disastrous effect on the plaintiff’s case for several reasons. First, a plaintiff typically only gets “one bite at the apple” and cannot file a second case based on the same allegations. Second, if a named defendant can convince the judge or jury that an unnamed party bore responsibility for the plaintiff’s injuries, the named defendant may escape liability entirely.

In Washington, D.C. dog bite cases, the owner of the animal that attacked the plaintiff should certainly be named as a defendant. However, depending on the surrounding circumstances, there may be additional parties, such as a landlord or property manager, who should be named. A recent case shows the type of analysis courts engage in when considering a dog-bite claim made against someone other than the animal’s owner.

The Facts of the Case

According to the court’s opinion, the plaintiff was out walking her two small dogs when two larger dogs began attacked her animals. The plaintiff tried to intervene, but one of the larger dogs knocked her down to the ground and started attacking her. A neighbor called the police, who shot and killed both of the large dogs. The plaintiff was airlifted to a nearby hospital with serious injuries.

Continue reading ›

For many residents and guests, Washington, D.C. is known as a walkable city. At the same time, the District gets its fair share of winter weather. Thus, the winter months always bring about an increase in the number of Washington, D.C. slip-and-fall accidents due to snowy and icy conditions.

Generally, Washington, D.C. landowners (including the government) have a duty to ensure that their property is safe for visitors. The case of snow and ice is no exception, and landowners should take the necessary actions to clear their property of hazardous snow and ice. Of course, property owners cannot be responsible for immediately clearing snow as it falls, so the law provides a 24-hour grace period. However, after 24 hours, a landowner can be liable for injuries that occur due to snowy or icy conditions on their property.

Weather-related slip-and-fall accidents frequently raise a number of unique issues beyond those that typically arise in a premises liability case. A recent case illustrates one court’s distinction between the “natural” and “unnatural” accumulation of snow. While Washington, D.C, premises liability law does not draw this same distinction, the local law is similar in that courts focus on the landowner’s knowledge of the hazard and the appropriateness of their actions in remedying the hazardous conditions.

Continue reading ›

As a general rule, Washington, D.C. landowners owe a duty of care to those whom they allow onto their property, and when someone is injured on another’s property they may be able to pursue a claim for compensation through a Washington, D.C. premises liability lawsuit. However, landowners are not always responsible for a visitor’s injuries. Thus, a common question that comes up in Washington, D.C. premises liability cases is whether a landowner can be liable for injuries caused by criminal acts of a third-party.

These cases are more common than most people think. For example, violent criminal acts that occur in Washington, D.C. apartment complexes, schools, playgrounds, basketball courts, or parking lots may all be preventable. However, determining when the landowner can be held liable for the injuries caused as a result of such criminal conduct can be tricky. A recent state appellate opinion discusses how courts view premises liability claims based on a third-party’s criminal conduct.

The Facts

In its opinion, the court explained that the plaintiff had just finished picking up a few items at the grocery store and was walking to her car when she was approached by a man who shot and killed her. The estate of the plaintiff filed a wrongful death claim against the owner of the grocery store, arguing that the owner had a duty to protect customers from the criminal acts of third parties.

Continue reading ›

Premises liability is a legal concept that imposes a duty on landowners to keep their property safe for guests. These cases are often referred to as slip-and-fall cases. Often, Washington, D.C. slip-and-fall accidents occur at a business or while on government-owned property. However, that is not always the case.

It is not uncommon, however, for someone to be injured while visiting a loved one’s home. Of course, the law does not prevent a person from bringing a claim against a family member. And it is important to remember that homeowner’s insurance will generally cover personal injury claims made against a homeowner. Thus, even if a loved one’s negligence causes a Washington, D.C. slip-and-fall accident in failing to ensure their property is safe, the homeowner will not typically be the one required to pay for any damages suffered by the accident victim.

A recent case illustrates a situation in which an injury victim may choose to pursue a claim against a loved one based on injuries sustained on the loved one’s property.

Continue reading ›

One of the first major decisions that a Washington, D.C. personal injury victim must come to is where to file their case. A court can only hear a lawsuit if it has jurisdiction to do so. There are two types of jurisdiction, personal and subject-matter. Subject-matter jurisdiction refers to the court’s ability to hear the specific kind of claim being brought by the plaintiff. Personal jurisdiction refers to whether a court has the power to issue a binding declaration against a party.

Establishing jurisdiction over a plaintiff is generally easy, because the plaintiff consents to jurisdiction by filing a claim with the court. However, determining which courts have jurisdiction over a defendant can be tricky. In Washington, D.C., the general rule is that a court has jurisdiction over a party if the party resides or does business in that state. Thus, if a Washington, D.C. resident causes an accident in Delaware that injures a Maryland plaintiff, the plaintiff could file the claim in Washington, D.C. because that is where the defendant resides.

Other Ways to Establish a Court’s Jurisdiction

Often, filing a claim where the defendant resides is not preferable for a plaintiff. It may be that the law in the state where the defendant lives is unfavorable to the plaintiff’s claim or that the plaintiff wants to litigate the case close to their home. In any event, a plaintiff may be able to file a lawsuit in another state if they can establish that the state has jurisdiction.

Continue reading ›

Most Washington, D.C. personal injury cases are based on the theory of negligence. In Washington, D.C., there are two primary defenses to personal injury lawsuits: contributory negligence and assumption of the risk. As we have discussed at length in other posts, contributory negligence refers to an injury victim’s shared responsibility in bringing about their own injuries. Under Washington, D.C. personal injury law, if a plaintiff is contributorily negligent, they are precluded from recovering for their injuries.

The assumption of risk is a different, but related concept. Under an assumption of the risk defense, a defendant is claiming that the plaintiff voluntarily entered into a situation with full knowledge and appreciation of the risks involved. In these situations, while a plaintiff’s actions may not have contributed to their injuries, their acceptance of the risks involved with a particular activity prevent them from holding others responsible for their injuries. The doctrine of assumption of the risk only rarely applies to Washington, D.C. car accident cases. That said, it is much more common in premises liability cases and sports injury cases.

A recent state appellate opinion discusses the concept of assumption of the risk as it relates to skiing.

Continue reading ›

After a plaintiff files a Washington, D.C. personal injury case, the need may arise for the plaintiff to file an amendment to their complaint. It may be possible to add a previously unnamed party, add or remove a claim, or correct a party’s name. Depending on the amendment, there can be major implications regarding the applicable statute of limitations. Thus, in order to understand why the concept of relation back is important, one must first be familiar with statutes of limitation.

Generally speaking, a statute of limitations provides for the timeframe in which the plaintiff has to file a lawsuit. The statute of limitations usually starts to run at the time of injury; however, there are extenuating circumstances in which the statute of limitations does not begin to accrue until a later date. Once the statute of limitations expires, the plaintiff can no longer pursue a claim against the defendant. In Washington, D.C., the statute of limitations for personal injury actions is three years.

A recent opinion issued by a state appellate court discussed the concept of relation back, and why it is so important.

Continue reading ›

Washington, D.C. personal injury claims that are brought by an employee against an employer are rare, because the Washington, D.C. workers’ compensation program typically acts as an injured employee’s sole remedy against their employer. The good news is that workers’ compensation claims do not require an employee to show that their employer was at fault. This makes obtaining compensation easier in situations where an employer was not at fault, or even when an employee was at fault.

The problem with workers’ compensation claims is that they offer limited compensation to injury victims. Generally, a workers’ compensation claimant is only entitled to compensation for medical expenses and wages. This leaves an injured employee with no recourse for the emotional pain and suffering that frequently accompany these injuries.

Although rare, in some cases it is possible to pursue a Washington, D.C. personal injury claim against an employer. For example, if an employer caused an employee’s injury through intentional conduct, the employer may not receive protection from the workers’ compensation program. Additionally, if the injured worker is either a seaman or a railroad worker, federal law may explicitly allow for a claim to be filed against an employer.

Continue reading ›

In a Washington, D.C. medical malpractice case, a plaintiff must be able to establish that the care provided by the named defendants fell below the applicable standard of care. In addition, a plaintiff must show that a defendant’s act or omission was the cause of their injuries. This is referred to as causation. A recent case issued by a state appellate court discusses causation in the medical malpractice context.

The Facts

According to the court’s opinion, the plaintiff noticed a large mass on the back of her head. She went to the doctor, who diagnosed the mass as a tumor, and was referred to a neurosurgeon. The neurosurgeon determined the mass was an osteosarcoma that was dangerously close to the plaintiff’s brain. He recommended surgery to remove some of the tumor’s mass, to be followed by radiation or chemotherapy. The plaintiff agreed to the surgery.

The neurosurgeon ordered several tests to be conducted by the plaintiff’s primary care doctor to ensure that her body was in good enough condition for the surgery. Evidently, the test results were abnormal. When the plaintiff went in on the day of surgery, the anesthesiologist reviewed the plaintiff’s chart and noticed the abnormal results; however, upon further review, he determined the plaintiff was fine to proceed with the surgery. The anesthesiologist did not inform the surgeons of the abnormal test results.

Continue reading ›

Contact Information