Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
0
1 d pretrial motion practice marshall hb lead-conf
1 d pretrial motion practice marshall hb lead-conf
1 d pretrial motion practice marshall hb lead-conf
1 d pretrial motion practice marshall hb lead-conf
1 d pretrial motion practice marshall hb lead-conf
1 d pretrial motion practice marshall hb lead-conf
1 d pretrial motion practice marshall hb lead-conf
1 d pretrial motion practice marshall hb lead-conf
1 d pretrial motion practice marshall hb lead-conf
1 d pretrial motion practice marshall hb lead-conf
1 d pretrial motion practice marshall hb lead-conf
1 d pretrial motion practice marshall hb lead-conf
1 d pretrial motion practice marshall hb lead-conf
1 d pretrial motion practice marshall hb lead-conf
1 d pretrial motion practice marshall hb lead-conf
1 d pretrial motion practice marshall hb lead-conf
1 d pretrial motion practice marshall hb lead-conf
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

1 d pretrial motion practice marshall hb lead-conf

69

Published on

HB Litigation Conferences Lead Litigation 2013

HB Litigation Conferences Lead Litigation 2013

Published in: Technology, Economy & Finance
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
69
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
3
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. November 14-15, 2013
  • 2. RAYMOND L. MARSHALL, ESQ. 401 WASHINGTON AVENUE, SUITE 1100 TOWSON, MARYLAND 21204 RMARSHALL@CRLMLAW.COM (410) 494-3700
  • 3. I. IMPORTANT CAUSATION POINTS FOR PLAINTIFFS IN SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR MOTION FOR JUDGMENT II. AN ARGUMENT TO CONSIDER WHEN CAUSATION IS DIFFICULT TO PROVE III. MISCELLANEOUS POINT FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
  • 4. 1. CAUSATION IS TYPICALLY DECIDED BY A JURY ◦ COLLINS V. LI, 176 MD. APP. 502, 933 A.2D 528 (2007) 2. THE STANDARD IN WHICH THE COURT REVIEWS THE MOTIONS IS FAVORABLE TO A PLAINTIFF ◦ MYERS V. KAYHOE, 301 MD. 188, 892 A.2D 520 (2006)
  • 5. 3. THE “SUBSTANTIAL FACTOR” TEST WAS CREATED TO LESSEN, NOT INCREASE, A PLAINTIFF’S BURDEN TO PROVE CAUSATION, AND MARYLAND COURTS CONTINUE TO FOLLOW THIS TEST ◦ BARTHOLOMEE V. CASEY, 103 MD. APP. 34, 651 A.2D 908 (1994) ◦ RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS CONSTITUTES LEGAL CAUSE 431. WHAT
  • 6.  THE ACTOR’S NEGLIGENT CONDUCT IS A LEGAL CAUSE OF HARM TO ANOTHER IF: A) HIS CONDUCT IS A SUBSTANTIAL FACTOR IN BRINGING ABOUT THE HARM; AND B) THERE IS NO RULE OF LAW RELIEVING THE ACTOR FROM LIABILITY BECAUSE OF THE MANNER IN WHICH HIS NEGLIGENCE HAS RESULTED IN THE HARM
  • 7. 4. THE INITIAL BURDEN OF PROVING CAUSATION IS ON THE PLAINTIFF ◦ RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS  “MORE PROBABLY THAN NOT” 433B(2) BUT THE BURDEN OF APPORTIONING HARM IS ON THE DEFENDANT ◦ RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS 433A  LIABILITY IS IMPOSED EQUALLY WHERE TWO OR MORE CAUSES ARE CULPABLE AND INCAPABLE OF DIVISION  UNLESS DEFENDANT PROVES THAT HARM CAN BE APPORTIONED
  • 8. 1. WHEN A LEAD TEST IS NOT AVAILABLE, ARGUE SPOLIATION ◦ DEFINED ◦ PROOF  PRIOR CLAIMS AND LAWSUITS  EXISTENCE OF INSURANCE POLICY  MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT REGISTRATION  DEFECT, NOT NOTICE ◦ CAUSE OF ACTION
  • 9. The destruction of or the failure to preserve evidence by a party may give rise to an inference unfavorable to that party. If you find that the intent was to conceal the evidence, the destruction or failure to preserve must be inferred to indicate that the party believes that his or her case is weak and that he or she would not prevail if the evidence was preserved. If you find that the destruction or failure to preserve the evidence was negligent, you may, but are not required to, infer that the evidence, if preserved, would have been unfavorable to that party.
  • 10. • Residential rental properties built before 1950 are required to be registered annually with MDE • Exception – a passing Lead Free inspection certificate
  • 11. MD. R. 2-502 ◦ PROCEDURE ◦ APPLICATION  CRISE V. MARYLAND GENERAL HOSPITAL, INC., 212 MD. APP. 492, 69 A.3D 536 (2013)
  • 12. If at any stage of an action a question arises that is within the sole province of the court to decide, whether or not the action is triable by a jury, and if it would be convenient to have the question decided before proceeding further, the court, on motion or on its own initiative, may order that the question be presented for decision in the manner the court deems expedient. In resolving the question, the court may accept facts stipulated by the parties, may find facts after receiving evidence, and may draw inferences from these facts. The proceedings and decisions of the court shall be on the record, and the decisions shall be reviewable upon appeal after entry of an appealable order or judgment.
  • 13. RAYMOND L. MARSHALL, ESQ. 401 WASHINGTON AVENUE, SUITE 1100 TOWSON, MARYLAND 21204 RMARSHALL@CRLMLAW.COM (410) 494-3700
  • 14. Raymond Marshall ChasonRosner Leary & Marshall LLP Raymond L. Marshall ChasonRosner Leary & Marshall LLC 410.494.3709 rmarshall@crlmlaw.com

×