HB Litigation Conferences Lead Litigation 2013

1. November 14-15, 2013

3. RAYMOND L. MARSHALL, ESQ.
401 WASHINGTON AVENUE, SUITE 1100
TOWSON, MARYLAND 21204
RMARSHALL@CRLMLAW.COM
(410) 494-3700

4. 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

5. 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)

6. 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

7. 
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

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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.

12. • Residential rental
properties built
before 1950 are
required to be
registered
annually with
MDE
• Exception – a
passing Lead
Free inspection
certificate

13. MD. R. 2-502
◦ PROCEDURE
◦ APPLICATION
 CRISE V. MARYLAND GENERAL HOSPITAL,
INC., 212 MD. APP. 492, 69 A.3D 536 (2013)

14. 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.

15. RAYMOND L. MARSHALL, ESQ.
401 WASHINGTON AVENUE, SUITE 1100
TOWSON, MARYLAND 21204
RMARSHALL@CRLMLAW.COM
(410) 494-3700

16. Raymond Marshall
ChasonRosner Leary & Marshall LLP
Raymond L. Marshall
ChasonRosner Leary & Marshall LLC
410.494.3709
rmarshall@crlmlaw.com