 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Lewis v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.11/27/1996
tate Farm claim representative's investigation yielded only two pieces of evidence: (1) a statement from Mrs. Lewis claiming that Mr. Lewis lost control of the vehicle on the wet road and hit a guard rail; and (2) pictures of the damaged automobile. The investigation did not include any quantitative analysis or test results indicating whether any other circumstances contributed to the cause of the accident.
The claim representative, therefore, based his entire determination of fault on two facts: (1) Mr. Lewis was in an accident; and (2) the road was wet at the time of the accident. Maryland law, however, states that the mere fact that an automobile skids on a slippery road does not, in and of itself, constitute evidence of negligence. See Christ v. Wempe, 219 Md. 627, 635-637, 150 A.2d 918 (1958). To prove its case, State Farm had to present some substantive evidence demonstrating that its premium surcharge was justified. For example, evidence that Mr. Lewis was speeding or driving in an otherwise unreasonable manner could have substantiated State Farm's claim. Simply presuming that Mr. Lewis was more than fifty percent at fault because he was involved in a single-car accident on a wet road, however, was an arbitrary decision that falls outside the boundaries and requirements of section 240AA.
At oral argument, State Farm averred that, under Fields v. Morgan, 39 Md. App. 82, 382 A.2d 1099 (1978), it could rely on the theory of res ipsa loquitur to infer that Mr. Lewis was more than fifty percent at fault. Res ipsa loquitur consists of three elements:
1. A casualty of a sort which usually does not occur in the absence of negligence.
2. Caused by an instrumentality within the defendant's exclusive control.
3. Under circumstances indicating that the casualty did not result from the act or omission of the plaintiff.
Fields, 39 Md. App. at 85 (quoting Leikach v. Royal Crown, 261 Md. 541, 547-548, 276 A.2d 81 (1971).
In this case, however, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is not applicable because the element of exclusive control is lacking. We cannot say that a driver, driving an automobile on a wet road, has exclusive control of the vehicle. Control may depend upon prevailing circumstances. For example, when roads are wet or icy, there are situations in which a driver may lose control of his vehicle regardless of how carefully or reasonably he may be driving.
For the aforegoing reasons, the decision of the circuit court must be reversed.
JUDGMENT REVERSED.
CASE REMANDED TO THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR BALTIMORE CITY WITH INSTRUCTIONS TO REMAND TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE FOR APPROPRIATE ORDER IN CONFORMANCE WITH THIS OPINION.
APPELLEE TO PAY COSTS.
Page 1 2 3 Maryland Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|