November 14-15, 2013
RAYMOND L. MARSHALL, ESQ.
401 WASHINGTON AVENUE, SUITE 1100
TOWSON, MARYLAND 21204
RMARSHALL@CRLMLAW.COM

(410) 494-3700
I.

IMPORTANT CAUSATION
POINTS FOR PLAINTIFFS IN
SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR
MOTION FOR JUDGMENT

II.

AN ARGUMENT TO CONSIDER
WHE...
1. CAUSATION IS TYPICALLY DECIDED BY A JURY
◦ COLLINS V. LI, 176 MD. APP. 502, 933 A.2D 528 (2007)

2. THE STANDARD IN WHI...
3. THE “SUBSTANTIAL FACTOR” TEST WAS CREATED
TO LESSEN, NOT INCREASE, A PLAINTIFF’S BURDEN
TO PROVE CAUSATION, AND MARYLAN...


THE ACTOR’S NEGLIGENT CONDUCT IS A LEGAL CAUSE
OF HARM TO ANOTHER IF:
A)

HIS CONDUCT IS A SUBSTANTIAL FACTOR IN
BRINGI...
4. THE INITIAL BURDEN OF PROVING CAUSATION IS ON
THE PLAINTIFF
◦ RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS
 “MORE PROBABLY THAN NOT”
...
1. WHEN A LEAD TEST IS NOT AVAILABLE,

ARGUE SPOLIATION
◦ DEFINED
◦ PROOF
 PRIOR CLAIMS AND LAWSUITS
 EXISTENCE OF INSUR...
The destruction of or the failure to preserve
evidence by a party may give rise to an
inference unfavorable to that party....
• Residential rental
properties built
before 1950 are
required to be
registered
annually with
MDE
• Exception – a
passing ...
MD. R. 2-502
◦ PROCEDURE
◦ APPLICATION
 CRISE V. MARYLAND GENERAL HOSPITAL,
INC., 212 MD. APP. 492, 69 A.3D 536 (2013)
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...
RAYMOND L. MARSHALL, ESQ.
401 WASHINGTON AVENUE, SUITE 1100
TOWSON, MARYLAND 21204
RMARSHALL@CRLMLAW.COM
(410) 494-3700
Raymond Marshall
ChasonRosner Leary & Marshall LLP

Raymond L. Marshall
ChasonRosner Leary & Marshall LLC
410.494.3709
rma...
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
×

1 d pretrial motion practice marshall hb lead-conf

79

Published on

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
79
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
3
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

1 d pretrial motion practice marshall hb lead-conf

  1. 1. November 14-15, 2013
  2. 2. RAYMOND L. MARSHALL, ESQ. 401 WASHINGTON AVENUE, SUITE 1100 TOWSON, MARYLAND 21204 RMARSHALL@CRLMLAW.COM (410) 494-3700
  3. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 10. • Residential rental properties built before 1950 are required to be registered annually with MDE • Exception – a passing Lead Free inspection certificate
  11. 11. MD. R. 2-502 ◦ PROCEDURE ◦ APPLICATION  CRISE V. MARYLAND GENERAL HOSPITAL, INC., 212 MD. APP. 492, 69 A.3D 536 (2013)
  12. 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. 13. RAYMOND L. MARSHALL, ESQ. 401 WASHINGTON AVENUE, SUITE 1100 TOWSON, MARYLAND 21204 RMARSHALL@CRLMLAW.COM (410) 494-3700
  14. 14. Raymond Marshall ChasonRosner Leary & Marshall LLP Raymond L. Marshall ChasonRosner Leary & Marshall LLC 410.494.3709 rmarshall@crlmlaw.com
  1. A particular slide catching your eye?

    Clipping is a handy way to collect important slides you want to go back to later.

×