Address:
8 Executive Park Court Germantown, MD
Germantown, MD 20874
Get directions
- Customer travels
Lack of Informed Consent: In January 2011, Stewart A. Sutton settled a case in which a client/patient unwittingly participated in a medical research study. The client/patient lacked the capacity to provide the medical researcher with informed consent due to the fact that he suffered from a cognitive impairment and was experiencing flu symptoms on the day he executed the informed consent form.
Modification of Custody: In October 2010, Stewart A. Sutton successfully obtained for his client a consent order to modify physical custody of a severely disabled teenager. The relocation of the custodial parent from Maryland was the impetus for change in custody.
Article in Bar Newsletter: Stewart A. Sutton's article addressing when a contingency fee is earned by an attorney in a personal injury case was published in the October 2010 issue of the Bar Association of Montgomery County's Newsletter. An attorney's contingency fee is not earned when a case is settled, but rather when the settlement check is deposited and the funds are transferred to the attorney's trust account.
Article in Law Journal: In its September/October 2010 issue, the Maryland Bar Journal published Stewart A. Sutton's article on the recovery of emotional distress damages in legal malpractice cases.
Appellate Decision: In May 2010, Stewart A. Sutton obtained a favorable family law opinion from the Court of Special Appeals. A married couple bought a home, but the family home was titled only in the wife's name. At the time the marriage was breaking apart, she conveyed the family home to a Trust for zero consideration. In an unreported decision, the Appellate Court agreed that the family home was marital property, that the wife had dissipated the property, and that the husband was entitled to a monetary award for his share of the equity in the home.
Pet Sitter Liability: In April 2010, Stewart A. Sutton represented a client in a case involving the liability of pet sitters and the application of the doctrine of gratuitous bailment. The client's neighbors had agreed to pet sit while she was on vacation. The neighbors allowed the untrained puppy to run loose in the HOA's common areas in violation of the county leash law, the dog ran away, and it was hit in the snout by a passing vehicle. The dog suffered a fractured jaw; and the client incurred over $10,000 in veterinary expenses. However, Maryland Courts & Judicial Article section 11-110 places a $7,500 limit on the recovery of veterinary expenses when a household pet is injured.
Man Bites Dog: In March 2010, Stewart A. Sutton obtained a $10,000 judgment for a client who broke his hand by repeatedly hitting a pitbull. The pitbull had attacked the man's dog. The man punched the pitbull in its head so that it would open its jaw and loosen its vise-like grip on his pet. As a result of his heroic efforts, the client succeeded in thwarting the dog attack, but he unfortunately broke his hand in the process.
Expert witness: In January 2010, Stewart A. Sutton testified as an expert witness in a case where a parent opposed his children's Best Interest Attorney's petition for fees. It was Stewart A. Sutton's expert opinion that the BIA's block billing of time (such as "case work"; "review email", and "telephone call with parent") were insufficient, because these billing entries neither stated the nature of the work performed by the attorney nor why the work was reasonably necessary. As a result of the BIA's improper billing practices and other factors, the BIA's fees were reduced by 85%.
Automobile Injury Trial: In November 2009, Stewart A. Sutton obtained a verdict for a client who was injured in an automobile accident. The amount of the judgment was 3 times greater than the last offer made by the other driver's insurance carrier.
Reported Decision In June 2009, the Maryland Court of Appeals ruled that the trial court had improperly dismissed his clients' wrongful death claims against a home builder and a smoke detector manufactuer. The clients' boys were sleeping over at a friend's home during a power outage. The boys perished in a house fire, because the smoke detectors lacked a battery back-up. Pittway v. Collins 409 Md. 218 (2009).
Interspousal Tort: In December 2008, Stewart Sutton obtained a judgment for a wife whose husband had used her credit card without her authority. In 2003, Maryland completely abrogated the doctrine of interspousal immunity. Spouses now have the same right to sue his or her spouse as they would a stranger who committed either an intentional or non-intentional tort. This is an extremely important right, because it is common knowledge that a large percentage of credit card fraud and identify theft is commited by family members, including estranged spouses.
Pro Bono Case: In October 2008, Stewart Sutton successfully obtained a $30,000 settlement for a pro bono client. The client had lost her home to foreclosure. The attorneys for the mortgage company improperly had deposited and retained the $43,000 in surplus proceeds from the foreclosure sale in their non-interest bearing escrow account for 12-years. After the $43,000 in surplus proceeds were finally released to his client, Stewart A. Sutton negoitated a settlement in which the attorneys for the mortgage company agreed to pay $30,000 to his client for her 12-years of lost interest on her surplus proceeds.
Defense Verdict: In July 2008, Stewart Sutton successfully represented a diet/health club that was sued by a customer for a refund of her monthly membership fees. Stewart Sutton proved at trial that the customer's membership cancellation letter, which was allegedly sent by certified mail, was in fact a forgery.
Divorce Trial: On February 29, 2008, Stewart Sutton's client was granted a $26,500 monetary award and $12,000 in attorney's fees, because her husband had sold the family home without her knowledge and then had dissipated over $50,000 in net proceeds from this sale.
Review Granted: On February 13, 2008, the Maryland Court of Appeals granted Appellees' Petitions for Writ of Certiorari to review the Court of Special Appeals' decision in Collins v. Li 176 Md.App. 502 (2007).
Custody Trial: In November 2007, Stewart A. Sutton's client was awarded sole legal and physical custody of her 2 young children, despite the fact that the parents had maintained an equal access parenting schedule for more than 1-year.
Reported Decision: Stewart A. Sutton's clients prevailed on their appeal that the trial court had improperly dismissed multiple defendants in their wrongful death lawsuit arising from a house fire. Collins v. Li 176 Md.App. 502 (2007).
Foreclosure: In August 2007, Stewart A. Sutton vacated the foreclosure of his clients' Germantown home on the grounds that their lender had not provided proper notice that the homeowners had defaulted on their mortgage. By vacating the foreclosure, the homeowners were able to preserve their $200,000 in home equity.
Expert Witness: In March 2007, Stewart A. Sutton testified as an expert witness about the practice of law in a personal injury trial for an attorney who had suffered brain damage in an automobile accident and had to retire. He explained to the jury the higher level or executive decisions that an attorney is required to make in the course of practicing law from the initial meeting with a client to trying the client's case. The Montgomery County jury returned a substantial verdict for the plaintiff.
Custody Trial: In July 2006, Stewart A. Sutton represented a mother in a custody trial. Before the first witness had finished testifying, the father entered into a Consent Order that provided that the mother would have sole legal and physical custody of the parties' son.
Adverse Possession: In 2006, Stewart A. Sutton successfully represented a client in an adverse possession lawsuit for real property in Germantown. The land was titled in the name of his great-grandmother, who had died more than 50-years ago. By quieting title in his favor, the great-grandson was able to sell the valuable real estate.
Reported Decision: In an appeal, Stewart A. Sutton represented parents whose children had perished in a house fire. In a published decision, the Court of Special Appeals found that the voluntary dismissal of appellants' remaining claims was not a final, appealable order. Collins v. Li 158 Md.App. 252 (2004).
Premise Liability: In March 2003, a jury awarded Stewart Sutton's client $15,000 in emotional distress damages for having been accidentally locked in a drug store at closing time.
Wrongful Death: In January 2003, Stewart Sutton obtained an insurance policy limits settlement for the parents of two children, who perished in a house fire while sleeping in the basement at a friend's home. The fire was caused by an unattended candle, which was being used during an area wide electrical outage. The home's AC-power smoke detectors were not functioning due to the power outage.
All homes built in Maryland since 1990 are required to have dual-power smoke detectors. It is unlawful to sleep in an enclosed basement room that lacks an egressable window.
Reported Decision: In 2002, Stewart A. Sutton represented clients in a declaratory relief lawsuit against an insurance company regarding coverage for his clients' legal malpractice judgment against an attorney; and the U.S. District Court's decision was reported. Maynard v. Westport Insurance Corp. 208 F.Supp.2d 568 (D.Md. 2002).
Consumer Protection: In 2002, Stewart Sutton became the first private attorney in Maryland to obtain a judgment against a credit repair business due to its failure to comply with the Maryland Credit Services Businesses Act. The Court awarded the client trebled damages, punitive damages, and attorney's fees.
Security Guard Legislation In February 2002: Stewart Sutton testified before the House of Delegate's Committee on Commerce & Government Mattersin favor of HB 1127, which proposed to establish a task force to study how security guards are trained in Maryland and to make recommendations to correct any deficiencies. HB 1127 was overwhelmingly passed by the House of Delegates.
Legal Malpractice Judgment In February 2001: Stewart Sutton obtained a $130,000 legal malpractice judgment, which included $15,000 in emotional distress damages and $75,000 in punitive damages in a case where a lawyer had failed to file a breach a contract case prior to the expiration of the statute of limitations and then intentionally misrepresented to the client that the lawsuit had been filed in a timely manner.
The Stephon and Sammy Dual-Power Smoke Detector Bill: Stewart Sutton is representing the parents of 2 children, who perished in a June 1998 house fire in Gaithersburg. The smoke detectors in the home were not functioning due to a power outage. On January 31, 2001, Stewart Sutton and his clients testified before the House of Delegates in support of Delegate Paul Carlson's bill to require homeowners and landlords to disclose to purchasers and tenants that their residences lack dual-power smoke detectors and that the smoke detectors will not function during a power outage. This important fire-safety legislation was enacted and the law became effective on October 1, 2001.
Severance Pay Trial: An employee was required to sign a non-competition agreement after she was fired. In December 2000, Stewart Sutton successfully argued that the former employee was entitled to 30-days of severance pay, because she had not received any valuable consideration when she agreed to the restrictive covenant.
Legal Malpractice Trial: In August 2000, a jury awarded two of Stewart Sutton's clients $272,000 in a legal malpractice cases against an attorney. The clients had lost their beloved home, because their attorney failed to file their Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition prior to the scheduled foreclosure date. Although their home did not have any equity, the jury awarded $172,000 in economic damages. The clients were also awarded $100,000 for their emotional and mental distress for losing their home. The jury deliberated for only 25 minutes.
Modification of Visitation Trial: Stewart Sutton represented a divorced father in a modification of visitation trial in August 2000. The mother's position was that the current visitation schedule should remain in place. The trial lasted 2-days; and the Court more than doubled the number of the father's overnight visits with his 7-year old daughter.
Legal Malpractice Trial: Stewart A. Sutton was retained to prosecute a legal malpractice action against an established Rockville firm that had failed to file a Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition prior to the clients' foreclosure date. The result was that the clients lost their home and their credit was ruined. Stewart A. Sutton tried the legal malpractice case in mid-March 1999. The jury awarded $27,000 in economic damages and $100,000 in emotional distress damages.
Custody Trial: Stewart A. Sutton and his co-counsel obtained joint legal and physical custody award for a husband after a 2-day trial, despite the fact that he had lost 95% of his vision.
Security Guard Legislation: Stewart Sutton successfully represented four clients in two different cases against a local security guard company. The undertrained and overzealous security guards had been harassing citizens and unlawfully detaining them. As a result of this litigation and the Gazette's publication of an award winning article on the lack of regulation of security guard firms and their employees, Maryland passed legislation to require security guards to undergo a criminal background check every 3-years and allowed the State Police to revoke the license of a security guard who lacks good moral character.
– Feb 17, 2011 at 6:22 am
I am Stewart A. Sutton, and I've been practicing law within the District of Columbia, California, as well as Maryland for almost 25 years. I am a general practitioner who assists families, individuals, entrepreneurs, employees, and small businesses resolve their ordinary, and occasionally strange, legal problems.
My sphere of practice include:
* business law
* family law
* civil rights
* personal injury
* legal malpractice
* wills and trusts
* appeals, and
* real estate litigation
March 15, 2011
As someone who uses attorneys on a regular basis, I was dismayed when my usual lawyer was out of town. I turned to Stewart Sutton in the midst of a complicated financial dispute. I can be hard on attorneys - I tend not to think much of them. This one, however, was a pleasure to work with. From day one, I was kept apprised on the status of my case, receiving regular e-mail updates and phone calls. When the case become more complicated and ran longer than expected, Mr. Sutton was upfront with me about legal costs. All of my options were clearly explained to me in language the average person can understand. I highly reccomend Mr. Sutton and will no doubt call on him in the future.
– Zachary
February 16, 2011
Stewart is an accomplished and knowledable family law attorney!!! His position is that settling a case in a manner that benefits the litigants children first is the only REAL reason to practice family law!! He does not try to impose his view or lay on you the dreaded" this is what i would do" but instead listens patiently to get a resolution that ALL the parties can see is in their best interest!! He realizes most cases seem generic and mundane to most attorneys but ALL of those cases have unique people and he approaches each case with this in mind to get GOOD resolutions!!! If I knew 100 family law attorneys Stewart would still the first one i would personally recommend to my family, friends or even a casual aquaintance!!!
– Timothy
A. Often attorneys request that their clients sign a promissory note with a confessed judgment provision to make it easier for the law firm to collect fees owed from clients. The promissory note states that the client will pay his or her outstanding balance over a period of time and, if the client default on the payments, the law firm can obtained a confessed judgment for the balance owed.
A client should never sign such a promissory note, because there is a preexisting contractual obligation for the client to pay the fees owed.
Rule 1.8(a) of the Maryland Lawyers’ Rules of Professional Conduct require that the attorney inform the client of the desirability of seeking independent counsel and to give the client a reasonable opportunity to seek independent counsel prior to executing a promissory note. Rule 1.8 also requires that the attorney provide the client with informed consent in the form of a writing signed by the client, even if the client chooses not to seek independent counsel.
When a client signs a promissory note while being represented by the attorney, this creates a financial relationship between the client and the attorney. Such a relationship is a prima facia violation of Rules 1.7(a) (prohibiting representation when an attorney has a personal conflict of interest with the client) and 1.8(a). See Atty. Griev. Comm’n v. Snyder, 368 Md. 242, 265 (2002); Atty. Griev. Comm’n v. Korotki, 318 Md. 646, 666 (1990) (“to sustain a transaction of advantage to himself with his client, the attorney has the burden of showing, not only that he used no undue influence, but that he gave his client all the information and advice which it would have been his duty to give if he himself had not been interested, and that the transaction was as beneficial to the client as it would have been had the client dealt with a stranger”). Indeed, “when attorney and client contract during their attorney-client relationship, ‘the law makes a presumption against the attorney and in favor the client’”. Id. (quoting Etzel v. Duncan, 112 Md. 346, 350-51 (1910)). “This rule is founded upon public policy, because the confidential and fiduciary relationship enables an attorney to exercise a very strong influence over his client and often affords him opportunities to obtain undue advantage by availing himself of the client’s necessities, credulity and liberality”. Hughes v. McDaniel, 202 Md. 626, 633 (1953).
A.
THE 15 QUESTIONS THAT EVERY CLIENT NEEDS
TO ASK TO RETAIN THE RIGHT ATTORNEY
(published with the permission of KEP)
Several years ago, I had the misfortune of being involved in a protracted legal dispute. The entire experience was made infinitely worse by the first two attorneys that I retained. The first attorney, a highly regarded and extremely expensive Rockville attorney, was too busy to perform the necessary work on my case. I then interviewed 3 replacement attorneys. I made the rookie mistake of retaining a Bethesda attorney, who excelled at marketing herself and self-promotion, but lacked the sufficient legal skills and expertise to properly represent me.
After an exhaustive search, I then retained Stewart A. Sutton. What a difference the right attorney makes. He reviewed and personally organized my legal file and documents; he conferred with me to make sure that he understood the facts of my case; he researched and explained the applicable law to me; and he developed a new legal theory to resolve my case. As a result of Stewart A. Sutton’s efforts, I was able to settle my complex legal dispute quicker, more favorably, and less expensively than I had ever expected.
The lesson that I learned is that the right attorney will be able to resolve your legal problem in a favorable and expeditious manner. The wrong attorney will prolong your legal problems or make them worse. This makes the selection of your attorney a critical step in the process of solving your legal issues.
So that others do not repeat my mistakes, I wanted to determine how a person should go about retaining an attorney. In conjunction with a college course I was taking on surveys and research, I designed and undertook a study to answer my question.
My methodology was simple. I obtained the names and addresses of a wide cross-selection of former clients from recently closed civil court files from Montgomery County Circuit Court. I then interviewed the clients regarding whether or not they were satisfied with their former attorneys. I obtained basic characteristics of the attorneys from their former clients, the attorneys’ website, and other public databases. I then compared the characteristics of the attorneys from satisfied clients with the characteristics of the attorneys from dissatisfied clients.
The results were astonishing. I found that the attorneys for the satisfied clients shared many common characteristics. I have distilled my findings into 6 areas of inquiry and 15 essentials questions that a client needs to ask to retain the right attorney.
I.
SURVEY QUESTIONS
Step 1: GRADUATE OF A TOP RATED LAW SCHOOL
The first step is to select an attorney who attended a top rated law school. There are 200 law schools in the United States. Select an attorney who attended one the top 20 law schools as ranked by U.S. News and World Report.
Top rated law schools have a highly selective admission process; and graduation from one of these schools assures that the attorney has received a first rate legal education. While the University of Maryland produces many fine lawyers (Ranked No. 48), you are more likely to be satisfied with graduate from these local law schools: University of Pennsylvania (No. 7); University of Virginia (No. 10); Duke (No. 11); Georgetown University (No. 14); and George Washington (No. 20).
The other schools in the top ten are: Yale; Harvard; Stanford, Columbia, University of Chicago; New York University; Berkeley; and University of Michigan. The remaining schools in the top 20 are: Northwestern; Cornell; UCLA; University of Texas; Vanderbilt; University of Southern California; and Washington University in St. Louis.
Questions for clients to ask:
1. Which law school did you attend? (top 20 law school)
2. When did you graduate? (12 or more years ago)
Step 2: LARGE FIRM EXPERIENCE
The best students from top rated law schools are recruited by prestigious law firms located in major cities. These large firms are structured to train young lawyers to gain the necessary skills to practice law.
Questions for clients to ask:
3. Where did you work after you graduated law school? (a prestigious
or well known law firm)
4. How many attorneys worked at the law firm? (50 or more)
5. Where was the law firm located? (a city with a population over
500,000)
6. How long were you employed at this law firm? (5 or more years
years)
Step 3: BEGAN OWN LAW FIRM
After working at least 5 years at a large law firm, a lawyer has acquired sufficient skills to represent clients without supervision. A small fraction of such lawyers will eschew the high pay and prestige of working at a downtown law firm and start their own legal practice in suburban areas.
An attorney who starts his or her own firm is both confident and ambitious. You are looking for an attorney is a founding member of the firm and has been self-employed for at least 3-years.
Questions for clients to ask:
7. Are you a founding member of this firm? (yes)
8. When did you start your firm (3 or more years ago)
Step 4: SMALL FIRM
Small law firms (1 to 3 lawyers) have a distinct advantage over large firms. Small law firms have less overhead, less staff to supervise, and are less likely to become overextended with too many clients. A high attorney-to-staff ratio ensures that the attorneys are performing the work, not paralegals or secretaries.
Questions for clients to ask:
9. How many attorneys work at your firm? (1 to 3)
10. How many staff do you directly supervise? (0 or 1)
Step 5: NON-MATERIALISTIC
Many lawyers deliberately attempt to create the impression that they are successful by displaying their extravagant lifestyle. They drive high-end luxury vehicles, wear designer clothes and expensive jewelry, and live in high priced homes. The problem arises when lawyers live beyond their means. Such lawyers have a dysfunctional incentive to take on more cases than he or she can possibly handle. The hallmark of an overextended lawyer is providing low quality legal service to a high number of clients and charging excessive fees.
A non-materialistic lawyer is not concerned with creating the impression that he or she is successful by displaying ostentatious badges of wealth. The hallmark of a non-materialistic lawyer is providing high quality legal services to a small number of clients. Such lawyers can afford to turn away business, because they are not burdened with an extravagant lifestyle overhead.
Questions for a client to ask:
11. What type of vehicle does the lawyer drive? (under $30,000)
12. What type of watch does he or she wear? (under $250)
Questions concerning the attorney’s personal property can easily be worked into your initial interview with your prospective lawyer. You might say that you admire the attorney’s watch and inquire as to the manufacturer. You may inform the attorney that you are thinking about buying a new car, solicit his or her advice, and then ask him or her what type of vehicle he or she drives.
STEP 6: ACKNOWLEDGED LEGAL EXPERTISE
A non-materialistic attorney wants to impress clients, colleagues, and judges with his or her legal knowledge and skills. Such lawyers write legal books or articles for law journals, teach other lawyers at seminars, and serve as expert witnesses in court cases.
Questions for a client to ask:
13. Have you written a book or an article for law journal? (yes)
14. Have you taught other lawyers at a seminar or conference? (yes)
15. Have you testified in court as a legal expert? (yes)
II.
INTERPRETING THE SURVEY RESULTS
The clients who were most satisfied with their attorneys had affirmative responses to 12 or more of the questions. The clients who experienced the least amount of satisfaction had affirmative responses to 6 or fewer questions. Clients who had between 7 and 11 affirmative responses generally had a neutral experience with their attorney.
III.
LIMITATIONS
My findings are only preliminary in nature. A comprehensive study will have to be conducted to validate my results. My recommendations may only be applicable to clients who are seeking to retain an attorney in Montgomery County, Maryland.
Based upon anecdotal evidence of friends who have used my recommended methods for retaining an attorney, my advice increases the probability that the client will be satisfied with his or her attorney.
A. How is representing a child different than representing an adult?
Representing children who have been injured is considerably different than representing adults. Regardless of how seriously a child has been injured, no minor wants to sue a friend, a friend's parents, a neighbor, or a teacher. Even more challenging, children are not as articulate as adults, especially when the minor has suffered post traumatic stress from his or her injuries.
A. TYPES OF INJURIES TO CHILDREN
Children can suffer serious injuries in countless ways.
1. Motor vehicle accidents
Children are more likely than adults to suffer a severe injury in an automobile accident, because their small bodies cannot efficiently absorb and dissipate a physical impact. Stewart A. Sutton has successfully represented numerous minors who have been injured in vehicular accidents as both passengers and pedestrians.
2. School
Children are often injured at school, because they spend much of their waking hours at educational institutions
a. Classroom
In a class room, a teacher can violate a student's right to privacy by disclosing confidential medical information. Stewart A. Sutton successfully represented a minor whose HIV condition was disclosed by a Montgomery County public school teacher, because the teacher incorrectly believed that AIDS could be transmitted by sharing lip balm.
b. Recess
Each year, countless students are injured in playground fights. Teachers can be held liable for their failure to properly police the playground to stop fights between students. Besides physical injuries, it is common for a child who has been hurt in a school yard fight to suffer post traumatic stress symptoms.
c. Physical education classes
Many children are excused from participating in physical education due to medical conditions, such as asthma. Unfortunately, it is all too common that these children suffer exertion related injuries when their physical education teachers coerce them to participate in strenuous physical exercise.
d. Playground equipment
The school has a duty to properly maintain playground equipment and to supervise the children's proper use of the equipment under the doctrine of loco parentis.
3. Sleepover parties
When parents hosts a sleepover party, the parent expressly assume the responsibility of caring for their under aged overnight guests. Stewart A. Sutton has successfully represented a child who broke her ankle at sleepover parties due to the failure of the hosts to properly supervise the use of a trampoline. He also has successfully represented the parents of 2 children who died in a house fire in Gaithersburg, Maryland during an overnight sleepover when candles were used during a power outage.
4. Pools and hot tubs
Drowning is the second leading cause of unintentional injury-related death among kids ages 1 to 14. An adult host's duty to supervise minor guests' use of a pool or spa is inversely proportional to the child's age.
5. Dog bites
Thousands of children are wounded and scarred each year by dog bites. They are usually bitten by a neighbor or friend's dog. Stewart A. Sutton successfully represented a girl who was bitten on the face at a friend's house by the family dog.
6. Daycare Centers
Children are frequently injured at daycare centers due to understaffing and/or misuse of playground equipment. Stewart A. Sutton successfully represented a 5-year girl who finger was partially severed at a daycare center. The child was riding inside a wooden carriage that was being pushed by another child. The child's finger was crushed between the side of the carriage and an outdoor post. The daycare center was liable for the child's injuries, because the wooden carriage was never designed for outdoor use.
7. Babysitters
Stewart A. Sutton represented a mother whose son suffered disfiguring third degree burns when his babysitter held the child's hand in a pot of boiling water. The babysitter pled guilty to assault, battery, and cruelty to a minor; and she is serving a long prison sentence.
8. Psychiatric Hospitals
When a child is hospitalized to treat mental illness or substance abuse, the hospital's foremost duty is to protect the minor from harming himself or herself as well as protecting the child from other patients. Stewart A. Sutton has successfully represent a minor who was harmed as a result of the hospital's failure to properly monitor the minor patient.
9. False arrest and false imprisonment
Security guards often stop and detain children, despite the lack of probable cause to believe that the child committed a felony or breached the peace. Stewart A. Sutton has sued security guards firms for falsely arresting and imprisoning children.
B. DAMAGES
When a child suffers an injury, the child and the parent can recover 3 types of compensatory damages.
1. Medical and hospital bills
The parents are entitled to recover the child's medical and hospital bills, because the parents are responsible for providing medical care for their children. Even if the child has insurance, the parents are still entitled to be reimbursed for their child's healthcare expenditures.
2. Pain and suffering, including mental and
emotional distress
Anytime a child is physically injured, the child is entitled to compensation for his or her pain and suffering.
The minor is also entitled to be compensated for his or her mental and emotional distress in situations where there has not been a physical impact, such as when a teacher discloses the child's confidential medical condition.
3. Lost Wages
If the child's injuries prevents him or her from working at a regular job, the child can recover his or her loss income. If the child suffers a permanent injury, the child may be entitled to his projected future lost wages.
C. WRONGFUL DEATH OF A CHILD
For a wrongful death of a child, parents can collect damages for their own emotional distress as well as for their child's pre-death pain and suffering. As of October 1, 2009, the total amount of emotional distress (also known as non-economic damages) is capped at $1,087,500 in Maryland; and this amount increases by $22,500 on October 1st of each succeeding year.
For unmarried child between the ages of 18 and 21, the parents can recover their emotional distress damages as long as the parents provided more than half (50%) of child's support within 12 months before the child died.
As of October 1, 2009, the total damages the child's estate can recover for pre-death pain and suffering is capped at $725,000 in Maryland; and this amount increases by $15,000 on October 1st of each succeeding year.
The parents are also entitled to repayment of their child's medical and up to $5,000 in funeral expenses.
D. STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
Adults have 3-years to file suit to recover for their personal injuries. This is known as a statute of limitations. In Maryland, the statute of limitations for minors extends to the day before their twenty-first birthday. However, it is a better practice for a parent to file a lawsuit on behalf of their child as soon as practical. Otherwise, memories of the accident will fade and documentation of the child's medical treatment and bills may be difficult to find.
When one parent has sole custody of the minor, the custodial parent has the exclusive right to file suit on behalf of the minor for a period of 1-year after the accident. If the custodial parent does not file suit, the non-custodial parent or any other adult can file suit on the child's behalf in the capacity of the child's best friend.
E. COURT'S APPROVAL OF A SETTLEMENT
Over 90% of all personal injury lawsuits are resolved by the parties entering into a settlement. In Maryland, it is a common practice for the parties to ask the Court to approve the settlement as being in the child's best interest and then having the court enter a consent judgment for the amount of the settlement.
F. SETTLEMENT AND JUDGMENT PROCEEDS
When a minor receives more than $5,000 as a result of a settlement or judgment, the parents are required to deposit the proceeds into a protected trust account. The child may withdraw the money from the protected trust account when he or she turns 18, or if the Court approves a withdrawal prior to the child reaching the age of 18 upon a showing of good cause.
Seventy percent (70%) of the child's protected trust fund must be invested in zero risk obligations, such as AAA- or AA-rated government bonds, Treasury Notes, or CDs. Only 30% may be invested in a mutual stock fund or money market fund, as long as the prospectus of the fund states that its objective is long-term growth or capital appreciation.