 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Desua v. Yokim3/5/2001
vious cause- and-effect relationship that is within the common knowledge of laymen. Id. at 381-82. See also American Airlines v. Stokes 120 Md. App. 350 at 355-357 (1998), and Hunt v. Mercy Medical, 121 Md. App. 516 at 538-542 (1998).
We agree with Judge Kavanaugh that the cause-and-effect relationship in this particular case is not obvious enough to be considered "within the common knowledge of laymen." Here, appellant claims that she was "thrown forwards and backwards" as a result of what she described as "a relatively simple, rear-end accident" that "is of the sort that does not justify huge expenses." Yet, she is seeking "One Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($150,000.00) in compensatory damages plus interest and costs." Because of (1) the disparity between the damage to appellant's vehicle and the amount of her personal injury claim, and (2) the amount of time between her emergency room visit and her appointment with a treating physician, the question of causal connection that is presented by the facts of this case cannot be submitted to the jury in the absence of expert testimony. We agree with appellee's contention that in the absence of expert testimony "a jury is left to sheer speculation[.]" Given the circumstances in this case, expert testimony is required to show causation. Thus, Judge Kavanaugh was legally correct in her conclusion that, without expert testimony, appellant could not generate a jury question on the issue of whether the pain and suffering damages being sought were caused by the September 9, 1993 accident.
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED; COSTS TO BE PAID BY APPELLANT.
Page 1 2 3 4 Maryland Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|