Maine Injury Lawyer Blog

September 19, 2019

When Can a Medical Condition Be the Basis of a Maine Car Accident Lawsuit?

The Bureau of Highway Safety and the Maine Department of Transportation periodically release Maine crash data. These reports indicate that the leading causes of Maine accidents are distracted and inattentive driving, lane departures, speeding, and impaired driving. Many people believe that impaired driving is only a result of alcohol or illicit drug use; however, impaired driving also includes those driving while under the influence of a prescription medication that was prescribed to treat an underlying medical condition. It can also include those who drive while suffering from certain medical conditions.

Some medical conditions make it unsafe for an individual to drive a vehicle. People who know or should know that their medical condition can cause driving impairment should take appropriate precautions before operating a motor vehicle. In some instances, driving may not be safe at all. Certain medical conditions may predispose a person to engage in unsafe driving. For example, seizure disorders, sleep disorders, limited eyesight, and other conditions that require medication may limit a driver’s ability to drive safely.

If a driver’s health condition is the cause of an accident, they may be liable for any injuries caused by the accident. Establishing liability in typical impaired or drunk driving accidents may be straightforward; however, accidents resulting from medical conditions can be more complicated. Drivers owe others a standard of care to operate their motor vehicle safely. If a driver knows or should know that their medical condition or medication can cause impaired driving, they should not risk the safety of others by driving. If they fail to take the appropriate precautions and cause an accident, they may face liability.

September 12, 2019

Three Killed by Drunk Driver in Recent Maine Car Accident

by Peter Thompson & Associates

Earlier this month, three individuals were tragically killed in a car accident in Acadia National Park. According to a news report covering the accident, the driver had been drinking late into the evening on the night in question, yet mistakenly thought that he was able to drive. While specific details about the accident are not yet known, the report indicates that the driver, while traveling faster than the 25 miles per hour speed limit, lost control of his vehicle on a curve and then hit a tree.

The driver called 911 after the crash, and officials immediately responded. Three victims were identified, ages 27, 30, and 36. Law enforcement recently charged the driver with three counts of manslaughter, one for each victim.

Unfortunately, traffic deaths resulting from car or truck accidents are not uncommon and are a huge cause for concern in Maine. According to the Maine Department of Public Safety, traffic deaths in 2019 are up 24% from 2018. Before this tragic accident occurred, 105 people had been killed on Maine roads in 2019 so far. These deaths can result in criminal charges, potentially carrying fines and jail time for the driver, but the filing of criminal charges does little to help the accident victims, or their families, deal with the expenses incurred in the accident’s aftermath.

September 5, 2019

Maine Plaintiff Seeking $1 Million in Damages in Defective Design Lawsuit

by Peter Thompson & Associates

Recently, a man filed a Maine personal injury lawsuit against Ford Motor Company claiming that the defective design of a lawnmower caused a blade to fly off a mower and strike his leg. According to a local news report, the man was bicycling with his son when a pickup truck towing a trailer with a mower passed them. The blade on the mower came loose, struck the man, and severed his leg. The impact was so severe that the man may have bled to death. However, in a fortuitous turn of events, a nurse happened to witness the incident. The nurse stopped and used a beach towel as a tourniquet until further emergency help arrived. Although the man survived, he required amputation above the knee.

Following the accident, the victim filed a lawsuit against the mower’s manufacturer, the Ford Motor Company. The complaint alleged that the mower was defectively designed because there was no backup mechanism to prevent this type of accident. The mower’s design allowed the blade to drop when transported in an upright position. The plaintiff argued that the manufacturer should have designed a backup mechanism to ensure that the blade did not drop during transportation. Further, the plaintiff pointed out that the factory-installed safety device failed, and the manufacturer did not provide any warning to users that this type of accident could occur.

There are generally four types of product liability lawsuits in Maine; including:

August 28, 2019

Maine Personal Injury Plaintiffs Must Ensure They Follow All Court Rules, or Risk the Exclusion of Evidence

by Peter Thompson & Associates

Earlier this month, the federal appellate court overseeing Maine district courts issued an opinion in a medical malpractice case. The opinion illustrates the court’s power to exclude evidence if a party fails to comply with the court’s orders. The case raises an important issue for Maine personal injury litigants in that it emphasizes the importance of being familiar with the state’s procedural requirements.

According to the court’s opinion, the plaintiff was seriously injured after she underwent surgery at the defendant hospital. A few years after the surgery, the plaintiff filed a medical malpractice claim against the hospital and several doctors. Early on in the process, the court entered a scheduling order to outline several of the relevant deadlines. The scheduling order provided that the plaintiff must disclose the names of her expert witnesses and the contents of their reports by May 20, 2016. The scheduling order also stated that discovery was to close by November 15, 2016.

The plaintiff timely named one expert witness. At some point after the May 20 deadline, the plaintiff filed a motion to withdraw her case against one of the doctors, claiming that she did not have a case against that doctor. The court granted the plaintiff’s motion. The remaining defendants filed a motion asking the court to exclude the plaintiff’s named expert witness. While that motion was pending, the plaintiff filed a motion to re-join the dismissed doctor. The plaintiff noted that a report from another expert indicated that the dismissed doctor might have been responsible for the plaintiff’s injuries.

August 21, 2019

How the Maine Recreational Use Statute Can Impact an Injury Victim’s Ability to Recover for Their Injuries

by Peter Thompson & Associates

As a general rule, Maine personal injury laws hold people accountable for injuries that are caused by their negligence. In many cases, the basis of a personal injury suit is the defendant’s negligent action; however, a lawsuit can also be premised on a defendant’s failure to act. This is frequently the case in Maine premises liability cases.

Under Maine premises liability law, property owners and lessees owe a duty of care to those whom they invite onto their property. However, landowners do not owe the same duty to those who enter the property without permission. Courts generally do not require a plaintiff to prove that they were formally invited onto a property before finding that the property owner owed them a duty. Instead, courts consider the surrounding circumstances when making the determination. For example, a customer who enters a business establishment will be presumed to be an invited guest, even if they do not intend to make a purchase.

An important exception to the general rule that property owners owe a duty to those whom they invite onto their land is the Maine recreational use statute. A recreational use statute is a law that specifically prohibits certain lawsuits that are based on injuries occurring while engaging in recreational activity on the defendant’s land. The idea behind recreational use statutes is that the government wants to encourage landowners to allow the general public to enjoy their land without fear of being financially responsible for any injuries occurring as a result.

August 14, 2019

Maine Wrongful Death Cases

by Peter Thompson & Associates

Losing a loved one in any kind of accident is a tragic, life-altering experience, especially when the accident resulting in your loved one’s death was preventable. While nothing can bring a family member back, or ease the pain caused by such a loss, aggrieved family members may find some solace in holding the responsible party accountable through a Maine wrongful death lawsuit.

A wrongful death claim is a type of Maine personal injury claim in which the personal representative of the accident victim brings a claim against the parties believed to be responsible for the accident victim’s death. Wrongful death cases are commonly brought after fatal Maine car crashes, workplace injuries, or other tragic, preventable accidents.

This year, the Maine Legislature reorganized the state’s probate code, which contains the wrongful death act. Before July 1, 2019, wrongful death actions were brought under Maine Revised Statutes Title 18-A section 2-804; however, moving forward these claims are controlled by Title 18-C section 2-807. For the most part, the laws governing wrongful death cases are unchanged, with a few minor differences related to how courts distribute wrongful death damages awards.

August 6, 2019

Can the Victim of a Maine Skiing Accident Hold the Resort Liable?

by Peter Thompson & Associates

Maine is known for its excellent skiing and snowboarding. And while skiing and snowboarding are popular winter sports that all ages can enjoy, they can also present significant dangers. One common question that comes up after Maine skiing accidents is whether the ski resort can be held liable for a skier’s injuries. The answer, as is often the case in personal injury law, is “sometimes.”

Generally speaking, landowners owe a duty of care to those whom they invite onto their property. Thus, absent any other legislation, it would seem that ski resorts are bound by this duty and could be held liable for a skier’s injuries. However, the Maine State Legislature has the ability to clarify or eliminate a duty of care if it sees fit. Not surprisingly, given the fact that the ski tourism industry is a significant source of revenue for the state, lawmakers provide some legal protections to ski resorts.

Under Maine Revised Statutes section 15217, lawmakers have determined that skiers and snowboarders assume certain risks by engaging in these winter sports. In effect, section 15217 provides broad immunity to ski resorts by stating that skiers and snowboarders accept “the risks inherent in the sport and, to that extent, may not maintain an action against or recover from the ski area operator … for any losses, injuries, damages or death that result from the inherent risks of skiing.” The statute notes that weather conditions, surface conditions, and collisions with fixed objects, among other risks, are all inherent risks of the sport.

July 24, 2019

Can an Injury Victim Who Is Partially at Fault Still Recover Through a Maine Personal Injury Lawsuit?

by Peter Thompson & Associates

While some accidents are solely the cause of one party, it is not unusual for multiple parties to share responsibility for an accident. One of the most common questions Maine personal injury victims have is whether they can pursue a claim for compensation if they were partially at fault for the accident resulting in their injuries. The answer, as is often the case with legal questions of this nature, is “it depends.”

Maine courts employ the doctrine of modified comparative negligence when it comes to determining which injury victims can recover for their injuries. In many jurisdictions using a comparative negligence system, a partially at-fault plaintiff can recover for their injuries; however, a plaintiffs’ recovery amount will be reduced by their percentage of fault. Thus, if a plaintiff suffered $400,000 in personal injury damages but was found to be 25 percent at fault by the jury, the plaintiff’s total recovery amount would be $300,000.

Under Maine Rules of Civil Procedure section 156, as long as the injury victim is less than 50% percent at fault for the accident, they are legally permitted to recover for their injuries. However, unlike other jurisdictions, Maine courts “instruct the jury to reduce the total damages by dollars and cents, and not by percentage, to the extent considered just and equitable.” In so doing, juries should consider the plaintiff’s share of responsibility, but should not strictly rely on percentages when reducing a plaintiff’s award figure. In addition, the court must instruct the jury that their award amount will be the final verdict in the case and that there will be no further modification by the court.

July 18, 2019

Court Discusses Maine’s Equine Immunity Statute in Recent Personal Injury Case

by Peter Thompson & Associates

Earlier this month, a state appellate court issued an opinion in a Maine personal injury case discussing the state’s equine statute. Specifically, the court had to determine if the equine statute precluded the plaintiff’s case against the parents of a ten-year-old girl who struck the plaintiff while riding a horse. As the court notes, this case was the first time the Maine Supreme Court heard a case requiring the court to determine the breadth of immunity provided by the equine-immunity statute.

According to the court’s opinion, the plaintiff was observing children race horses at an arena. While there was a designated area for spectators, the plaintiff observed from an area that was closer to the exit. The plaintiff watched as a ten-year-old girl rode around the track several times. However, on the girl’s fourth circuit around the raceway, the girl’s horse collided with the plaintiff. The plaintiff fell, seriously injuring her wrist, and later filed a personal injury lawsuit against the girl’s parents (the defendants).

In response to the plaintiff’s complaint, the defendants claimed Title 7 Chapter 743 Section 4103-A of the Maine Revised Statutes provides the defendant’s immunity from the plaintiff’s lawsuit. Specifically, that statute provides that any “person engaged in an equine activity is not liable for any property damage or damages arising from the personal injury or death of a participant or spectator resulting from the inherent risks of equine activities.”

July 12, 2019

Circuit Court Overseeing Maine District Courts Issues Opinion in Slip-and-Fall Case

by Peter Thompson & Associates

Earlier this year, the First Circuit Court of Appeals issued a written opinion in a premises liability case involving a slip-and-fall accident at a wedding. While the case did not arise under Maine law, it is relevant to Maine slip-and-fall accident victims because it shows the tendencies of the federal circuit court overseeing Maine courts. The case required the court to determine if the lower court correctly denied the plaintiff’s post-trial motion seeking judgment as a matter of law. Ultimately, the court concluded that the evidence supported the jury’s verdict, dismissing the plaintiff’s case.

As the court described the events leading up to the filing of the lawsuit, the plaintiff was a guest at a wedding which was located at the defendant resort. The wedding venue was adjacent to the swimming pool. As the night went on, and guests began to enjoy themselves, several of the guests started jumping in the pool. After getting into the pool, the guests returned to the dance floor. This resulted in the dance floor getting wet.

The plaintiff was walking across the dance floor, heading to the restroom to change into her bathing suit, when she slipped and fell. As a result of her fall, she fractured her wrist and seriously injured her back. The plaintiff filed a premises liability lawsuit against the resort. The case proceeded to trial, where a jury determined that the resort was not negligent. The plaintiff filed a post-trial motion, arguing that she was entitled to judgment as a matter of law and that the evidence did not support the jury’s verdict. That motion was denied, and the plaintiff appealed.