 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Maryland Casualty Co. v. Lorkovic6/1/1994
motion on that ground. See Md. Rule 2-501(e) ("The court shall enter judgment in favor or
against the moving party if the motion and response show that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and that the party in whose favor judgment is entered is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.") (emphasis added). Hence, the trial court had no "discretion to deny summary judgment" on this "alternative ground." Three Garden Village LTD Partnership, 318 Md. at 107-108. Moreover, the record concerning Lorkovic's status at the time of his accident was fully developed below. Lorkovic requested summary judgment based on the coming and going rule, and appellants' trial memorandum and joint appellate brief present a detailed analysis of all the known exceptions to the coming and going rule. See A.J. Decoster Co., 333 Md. at 262-63; Foy, 316 Md. at 424; Metropolitan Mortgage Fund, 288 Md. at 29. We, therefore, are not precluded from affirming summary judgment based on the free transportation exception, and we do affirm.
II
The final issue for review is whether the trial court erred in determining that summary judgment was appropriate on the issue of whether Lorkovic's intoxication would bar his recovery under the Act.
We begin by examining the pertinent sections of the Act. Section 9-501 of the Act provides that regardless of fault, and except as otherwise provided, "each employer of a covered employee shall provide compensation ... to ... the covered employee for an accidental personal injury sustained by the covered employee." Section 9-506 delineates circumstances where compensation is prohibited, including where intoxication is the sole cause of the employee's injury. The pertinent language regarding intoxication is contained in subsections (c) and (e):
(c) Intoxication. -- A covered employee or a dependent of a covered employee is not entitled to compensation or benefits under this title as a result of an accidental personal injury
... caused solely by the intoxication of the covered employee while on duty.
...
(e) Presumption. -- In a proceeding on a claim for compensation, there is, absent substantial evidence to the contrary, a presumption that an accidental personal injury ... :
...
(3) was not caused solely by the intoxication of the covered employee while on duty.
Appellants assert that the trial court's grant of summary judgment on the issue of intoxication was error because intoxication was the sole cause of Lorkovic's accident or, alternatively, whether intoxication was the sole cause of Lorkovic's injuries was a question of material fact in dispute.
In his motion for summary judgment, Lorkovic asserted that despite the evidence of intoxication the appellants failed to meet their burden of (1) overcoming the presumption against intoxication and (2) disputing the material fact that Lorkovic's injuries were caused, at least in part, by his lack of sleep during his business trip, which, in turn, was caused by his health conditions.
The first question presented by the statute is whether the party raising the defense of intoxication has produced evidence sufficient to rebut the presumption against a finding that injury was caused solely by intoxication. In Maryland, once evidence tending to rebut a presumption is introduced, it must be determined whether "it is insufficient to be considered by the jury in rebuttal of the presumption," or whether it is "so conclusive that it shifts the burden or duty of going forward with th
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Maryland DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|