 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Rhea v. Burt4/1/2005
d. 583 (1990).
The record includes a PRETRIAL STATEMENT filed by Mr. Burt that contains the following information:
2. Documents and Records to be Offered in Evidence by the Defendant at the Time of Trial:
B. Any and all documents including expense vouchers, calendars, day planners, etc. evidencing the location, schedule, and itinerary of Mr. Burt at the time of the accident.
3. Witnesses:
1. Allen E. Burt, fact witness, 10 minutes.
2. Mrs. Burt, fact witness, 10 minutes.
3. Mr. Wurtz's assistant, fact witness, 10 minutes.
If it turns out that appellants' claims against Mr. Wurtz's estate should not be dismissed as barred by the statute of limitations, the Dead Man's Statute would not operate to exclude conversations between Mr. Wurtz and any of the persons mentioned in Mr. Burt's pretrial statement. Appellants are therefore entitled to (1) take the deposition of each person mentioned in that pretrial statement, and (2) disclosure of the identity of every other person with whom Mr. Wurtz discussed the accident. Because appellants were not afforded the opportunity to exercise their procedural rights to pretrial discovery, Mr. Burt was not entitled to a summary judgment in his favor, and the Estate of Mr. Wurtz was not entitled to a dismissal.
Appellants are also entitled to undertake discovery on the issue of whether actions of others, including but not limited to employees of Mr. Burt's liability insurance carrier, were "of such a character as to conceal [the fact that Mr. Wurtz was driving Mr. Burt's automobile at the time of the accident], whereby [appellants remained] in ignorance without any lack of diligence on [their] part." Morris, supra, 99 Md. App. at 663-64. We recognize the probability that discovery relating to the CJ 5-203 issue will require judicial involvement in the litigation of "privilege" issues, e.g. appellants' right to discovery of whatever statements Mr. Wurtz made to agents of Mr. Burt's liability carrier and of other documents that appellees claim are protected from discovery by the "work product" privilege. Although this Court does not issue advisory opinions, and shall not direct that a yet-to-arise discovery dispute be resolved in a particular way, we emphasize that the Maryland discovery rules are broad and comprehensive in scope, and were deliberately designed so to be. . . . If all of the parties have knowledge of all of the relevant, pertinent and non-privileged facts, or the knowledge of the existence or whereabouts of such facts, the parties should be able properly to prepare their claims and defenses, thereby advancing the sound and expeditious administration of justice. In order to accomplish the above purposes, the discovery rules are to be liberally construed.
Balto. Transit v. Mezzanotti, 227 Md. 8, 13 (1961).
Conclusion
We are not holding that, after all appropriate discovery has been completed, (1) Mr. Burt will not be entitled to summary judgment, and/or (2) the estate of Mr. Wurtz will not be entitled to a dismissal. We are persuaded, however, that appellants must be given the opportunity to exercise their procedural rights to discover the existence of evidence that will result in a trial on the merits of the negligence action(s) they have asserted as a result of their November 2, 1999 auto accident.
JUDGMENT VACATED; CASE REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION; EACH APPELLEE TO PAY 50% OF THE COSTS.
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.
|
|