On April 26, 2012, the Maryland Court of Appeals significantly modified the Maryland common law on liability for attacks by pit bulls and cross-bred pit bull mixes. As a result, the only corrective action that an owner or landlord may be able to take to avoid liability for harm caused to another by a pit bull or cross-bred pit bull mix on the premises is to exclude such dogs altogether.

Imagine one of your employees, driving a company vehicle, rolls through a stop sign and smashes into another driver. The other driver was speeding and was dialing a number on her cell phone. So who is at fault? And most importantly, who has to pay?

We thought it would be beneficial (and fun) to summarize how businesses were affected by laws, court decisions, and the like - in 2010.  For the next five days, we will give you our top 10 list and why it may be important to you and your business. 

Friday, February 4:
Well, we come to the end of our Top 10 for 2010.  In today's posts, Bryan Saxton explains why a limited liability company may be seeing less protection than was once afforded to not only this type of entity, but to its officers and managers.  For our construction clients (especially the general contractors), Bobby Mowell has some good news regarding your liability when using subcontractors.

We hope that you not only have enjoyed our Top 10 of 2010, but that you found them informative.  These stories and tips can help you make nformed decisions at the corporate level, and hopefully, avoid lawsuits and complaints.

Thursday, February 3:
We continue with our 4th installment of the Top 10 for 2010.  Today, Jessica Tupis tells you why you must accept Powers of Attorney - even if they are not your forms.  Also, Cate Hopkin has another cautionary tale for our friends in the banking and finance industry.

Wednesday, February 2:
We continue with our 3rd installment of the Top 10 for 2010.  This installment is good news for businesses and a warning for lenders.  For businesses, the courts have enforced the damages cap in cases of pain and suffering.  Chris Tully takes you through a 2010 case and its outcome.  Now, to our clients and friends who are lenders: Cara Lewis explains how a court decision in Philadelphia may affect your secured loans.

Tuesday, February 1:
We continue with our 2nd installment of the Top 10 for 2010.  Today, Jessica Tupis breaks down the Tax Relief Act of 2010 and, for those of you, who sell goods (retail or wholesale), Chris Heagy gives you a warning about doing so with a customer who has filed bankruptcy.

Monday, January 31:
Today, we start with two very different topics: (1) how your document management/IT practices can adversely affect you in the case of litigation and (2) the liability facing employers in the healthcare field.

First, Craig Haughton explains how a document retention plan can help you in the event you are sued.  He also explains how it can be a deterrent if not properly administered.  Second, for our healthcare provider clients and friends - a look at your liability as an employer.  Healthcare providers know that they may not retaliate against an employee who complains about violations that affect public health or safety.  But, in 2010, Maryland's highest court had the opportunity to interpret the Health Care Worker Whistleblower Protection Act.  Greg Garrett gives us a look at what happened.
 

 A recent case made it harder for an unsecured creditor to defend a preference avoidance action in a bankruptcy.  This ruling may be particularly troubling to unsecured creditors in the construction industry, because it involved the potential for payment from bond proceeds.

In a recent controversial opinion that allowed insurers and business owners to breath a huge sigh of relief, Maryland’s highest court upheld the constitutionality of Maryland’s cap on non-economic damages, meaning that a plaintiff’s claim for pain and suffering damages is limited regardless of what a jury awards. In the summer of 2006, a five-year-old boy accidentally drowned in a country club swimming pool in Anne Arundel County.  The boy’s parents sued the swimming pool management company for negligence.  The parents won and the jury awarded them over $4 million for their mental anguish from the death of their child.  Because of Maryland’s law that sets a cap on non-economic damages (pain and suffering, as opposed to medical expenses and lost wages), the trial court reduced the verdict to just over $1 million.  The parents appealed and argued that the statutory cap was unconstitutional. The court rejected the parents’ argument on the basis that it had already decided the same issue years before.  In two...

We live in an era where litigation is an ever-present, and a sometimes overwhelmingly frequent, consequence of doing business. Businesses must be aware of their obligations under the law to prepare for potential litigation on an ongoing basis. The advent of email and other forms of electronic transmission and storage of information increases the need for a reliable electronic and paper document retention plan (that is communicated to all employees); having one can sometimes enhance the chances of efficient and successful litigation and avoid the imposition of court sanctions for failure to preserve records relevant to litigation. In addition, all businesses and their employees must know when, even with a document retention plan, the law triggers a further obligation to retain documents, also known as a "litigation hold."

Employees in the health care field are protected from retaliation by their employers for complaining about violations if those violations affect public health or safety.  In fact, the Health Care Worker Whistleblower Protection Act generally provides that an employer in the health care field may not retaliate against an employee based on an employee’s disclosure of (or threat to disclose) his or her employer’s violation of law, if the violation “poses a substantial and specific danger to the public health or safety.”  If an employer does retaliate, the employee can sue the employer for damages, including attorney’s fees.  The reverse also holds true.  If an employee frivolously sues his or her employer claiming retaliation, a court can require that the employee reimburse the employer for attorneys’ fees incurred in defending the case.

Last year, Maryland’s highest court interpreted the Act for the first time.  In that case, a nurse employed by a hospice company complained to her supervisors that her coworkers...

Your corporate headquarters is in Maryland; you have another location in Northern Virginia.  Are your non-compete agreements written according to Maryland law or Virginia law?  If you said Maryland, read "Competition Challenges" to find out why Virginia law may also matter.  Inside Counsel contacted our own Melissa Jones when writing this story, and she shares her experiences with them.
 

"The Cloud." If you don’t know the term, get used to hearing it. Today’s technology offers extensive opportunities for sharing, storing, and backing up data remotely – data sent to and stored on servers you do not own, control, or, probably, even have the ability to monitor. Where is the data? It’s in "The Cloud."

This is a time of joint ventures and partnerships.  With commercial financing still difficult to come by, business owners are entertaining loans and investments from private parties and joint ventures/partnerships with other businesses.  So, lots of Non-Disclosure Agreements ("NDAs") are being used.