 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Edmonds v. Murphy5/30/1990
The "cap" on damages in personal injury cases has been the subject of much controversy and debate within and without the legal profession. One recent law review article even suggests that we "blast the cap" that limits recovery of noneconomic damages in personal injury actions. As shall be seen, we choose not to follow that suggestion. While the centerpiece of our decision in this case is the constitutionality of the cap, there also are other important issues that we must address. We begin with a brief summary of the incident that precipitated this action and an overview of the case's procedural history. We will add other factual details as they become necessary for our discussion of the issues.
Shortly after noon on a clear December day in 1987, Richard Edmonds was driving north on Interstate 83 in Baltimore County in a tractor trailer owned by his employer, Port East Transfer Company (Port East). The road surface was dry and visibility was good. Suddenly, the truck's left front tire exploded, causing Edmonds to lose control of the vehicle. The truck, which had been in the center lane, crossed over the left lane northbound, the grass median, and the three southbound lanes before colliding with an embankment on the southbound side of the highway. Sarah Murphy was driving in one of the southbound lanes when her car collided with Edmonds's truck. Ms. Murphy suffered serious physical injuries.
Sarah Murphy and her husband, Clark Murphy, Jr. (appellees), filed suit against Edmonds and Port East (appellants) in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County alleging gross negligence and negligence, and seeking compensatory and punitive damages. A jury trial was conducted in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County (Judge Joseph F. Murphy, Jr., presiding) in August 1989. At the trial, the Murphys presented evidence that, inter alia : (1) Edmonds was late for a delivery in Harrisburg; (2) the tire blew out because it had been improperly repaired; (3) before the accident, the tire had two visible holes; and (4) Edmonds dove to the floor of the truck because he feared for his life. The jury returned a verdict awarding compensatory damages against both appellants in the total amount of $797,165.31, of which $510,000 were awarded for pain and suffering. The jury also awarded punitive damages of $3,000 against Edmonds and punitive damages of $1,000,000 against Port East.
Appellants filed a motion requesting that the trial court apply ยง 11-108(b) to the noneconomic damages awarded to the Murphys, as well as a motion for remittitur or, in the alternative, for a new trial, pursuant to Md. Rule 2-533. Judge Murphy denied both motions. He refused to apply the cap because he concluded that it violated equal protection
provisions. Judgment was entered on the jury's verdict on September 19, 1989. Appellants filed this appeal two days later and assert that:
I. The trial court erred in holding that the cap statute was unconstitutional.
II. The trial court erred in holding that the award for loss of homemaker services was not includable within the cap.
III. The plaintiffs failed to present evidence sufficient to justify an award of compensatory damages against either defendant.
IV. The plaintiffs failed to present evidence sufficient to justify an award of punitive damages against either defendant.
V. The lower court erred in failing to instruct the jury on the doctrine of sudden emergency.
VI. The lower court erred in failing to instruct the jury regarding the plaintiffs' burden to establish notice of the defect.
VII. The trial court erred in denying the defendants'
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Maryland Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|