Ocean City, Maryland Criminal Defense Attorney | DUI vs. DWI in Maryland

With temperatures rising and Memorial Day weekend having marked the unofficial start of summer, many residents of the Baltimore and Washington D.C. metro area will be heading to Ocean City, Maryland during the week and weekends. Whether grilling at a beach house or eating at a restaurant on the boardwalk, it's likely many people will be relaxing and kicking back with a drink or two. People have a tendency to drink more than usual in a relaxed, vacation environment and this could lead to the poor decision of getting behind the wheel. In 2011, over 16,000 arrests were made for driving under the influence in Maryland. It takes only one bad choice to completely change your life.

In Maryland, if you are pulled over for drinking or driving, you could possibly be charged with two types of offenses--a DUI (driving under the influence) or a DWI (driving while intoxicated). If you are charged with a DUI in Maryland, it means, among other things, that your blood alcohol concentration (BAC) posted at a level of .08% of higher. You could face up to one year in jail, and 12 points are automatically marked against your driving record, which results in an instant revocation of your license for six months. The monetary fine for a first offense DUI is $1,000. A second offense DUI could result in jail for up to two years with a mandatory minimum of five days. Your license will be revoked for one year and suspended for one year, there will be a 3-12 months ignition interlock period, 12 points will be marked on your driving record, and there is a $2,000 fine.

You can be charged for a DWI if your BAC is .07. For a first offense DWI, your license is suspended for 60 days with eight points are marked against your driving record. You could face up to 60 days in jail and the monetary fine is $500. For a second offense DWI, your license is suspended for up to 120 days, eight points are marked against your driving record, you could face up to a year in jail, and the monetary fine is $500.

Traffic related prosecutions, particularly DUIs and DUI-fatalities, are among the most complicated cases to handle. The highly experienced attorneys at Portner & Shure can begin working on your DUI or DWI case immediately to ensure your rights are protected. The committed attorneys will work tireless to build a strong defense and find weaknesses in the prosecution's case.

Ocean City, Maryland Personal Injury Attorney | Memorial Day Weekend Traffic Update

Heading to Ocean City, Maryland from the Washington D.C. metro area between 2:00 p.m. and 4:00 p.m. on Friday will add about three hours to the trip, according to travel data company Inrix. Inrix stated people who are headed south toward Richmond, Virginia from 2:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. on Friday will see their travel time double. According to AAA, 907,750 people plan to leave the region for Memorial Day weekend. Approximately 67,000 people will fly, with the remaining traveling by bus, rail, or boat.

According to the National Safety Council, it is estimated that 382 people will die in traffic crashes nationwide and 40,900 who survive crashes will end up in emergency rooms this Memorial holiday weekend. AAA Mid-Atlantic expects to come to the rescue of more than 30,000 stranded motorists.

The Maryland State Highway Administration suggests you use the free travel service hotline 5-1-1-, which monitors traffic conditions.

Portner & Shure wishes you a safe and happy Memorial Day weekend.

Maryland Personal Injury Attorney | Theories of Liability for Dog Bites in Maryland

Under Maryland common law, an owner or keeper of a dog may be responsible for an injurious act of the dog under two alternate theories of liability: (1) negligence; or (2) strict liability arising from the defendant's knowledge of the dog's propensity to cause harm. Under a negligence claim, an owner of an animal will be liable for damage proximately caused by the animal if the owner exercised ineffective control of the animal in a situation where it would reasonably be expected that injury could occur. In determining the necessary degree of control, the past behavior of the animal and the foreseeability of the injuries should be considered.

Under common law, absent a showing of negligence, a defendant is not liable for an injury caused by a dog unless, at the time of the attack, the defendant knew or had reason to know of the dog's vicious tendencies or propensities (scienter). Though commonly referred to as the "one bite rule," a plaintiff seeking to recover damages for injuries caused by a dog is not required to prove that the dog actually bit someone prior to the attack on the plaintiff. The defendant's knowledge of the dog's vicious propensity "need only be such as to put him on his guard, and to require him a an ordinary prudent person to anticipate the act or conduct of the dog resulting in the injury for which the owner is sought to be held liable." On a showing of knowledge of the dog's vicious propensity, a plaintiff may recover under the common law on the basis of strict liability. 

Early last month, Governor Martin O'Malley signed legislation that lifted the "inherently dangerous" legal stigma from the pit bulls of Maryland. The measure negated the 2012 Court of Appeals ruling in Tracey v. Solesky that pit bulls are "inherently dangerous" and must be held to a stricter liability standard than other dogs. The Court acknowledged that it was imposing "breed-specific liability standards," stating:

"We are modifying the Maryland common law of liability as it relates to attacks by pit bull and cross-bred pit bull dogs against humans. With the standard we establish today (which is to be applied in this case on remand), when an owner or a landlord is proven to have knowledge of the presence of a pit bull or cross-bred pit bull (as both the owner and landlord did in this case) or should have had such knowledge, a prima facie case is established. It is not necessary that the landlord (or the pit bull's owner) have actual knowledge that the specific pit bull involved is dangerous. Because of its aggressive and vicious nature and its capability to inflict serious and sometimes fatal injuries, pit bulls and cross-bred pit bulls are inherently dangerous."

On August 21, 2012, the court reconsidered its decision and limited its application to purebred pit bulls. Animal advocates across the nation objected to the court's delicious to treat pit bulls differently.

The legislation passed by the legislature this year - after failed attempts to reach agreement between the Senate and House in 2012 and 2013 - applies the same legal standard to all dogs. It makes all dogs, regardless of breed, subject to the same liability standard. It shifts the burden of proof to the owner to show that there was no previous reason to believe a dog was dangerous. Previously, the burden had been on the bite victim to prove that the owner knew or should have known that the dog had vicious or dangerous propensities. The legislation also makes it more difficult for victims of pit bull attacks to sue landlords. The court decision in Tracey v. Solesky had opened the door to such suits, and animal advocates contended that people were being forced to choose between losing their homes and giving up their pets.