## Facts

- Richard Naughton and Jacques Bankier were social acquaintances staying in neighboring beach houses in Dewey Beach, Delaware.
- In summer 1990 they participated in water-balloon battles.
- Bankier used a “Winger,” a large slingshot-like device operated by multiple people that could launch water balloons long distances at very high speed.
- On August 25, 1990, Bankier and others used the Winger to shoot a water balloon through an open window into Naughton’s residence, striking Naughton and injuring his eye.
- Naughton (a New York resident) sued Bankier (a Montgomery County, Maryland resident) in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County for personal injuries, including punitive damages.

## Issues

1. Whether Delaware substantive law governed tort issues, including the availability and standard for punitive damages, because the injury occurred in Delaware.
2. Whether Maryland’s statutory cap on noneconomic damages applied in a Maryland forum to a tort occurring in Delaware.
3. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in permitting defense expert testimony despite scheduling-order and disclosure objections.
4. Whether the trial court properly compelled Naughton to submit to a physical examination.
5. Whether the trial court erred in excluding the contents of the Winger manufacturer’s warning labels.
6. Whether the trial court erred in refusing to allow a demonstration of the Winger as demonstrative evidence.
7. Whether the trial court properly imposed a $350 attorney’s fee sanction based on the failure of an insurance representative to attend a settlement conference.

## Decision

- The Court of Special Appeals vacated the judgment and remanded for further proceedings.
- The court held that Delaware substantive tort law applied under Maryland’s lex loci delicti rule because the alleged injury occurred in Delaware, including Delaware’s standards governing punitive damages.
- The court reversed the $350 attorney’s fee sanction, concluding it was improperly imposed based on the nonappearance of a nonparty insurer representative.
- The court concluded that the trial court’s handling of punitive damages and certain evidentiary and trial-management rulings required vacatur and remand for proceedings consistent with the appellate opinion.

## Legal Principles

- In Maryland tort conflicts cases, lex loci delicti generally requires application of the substantive law of the place of injury.
- Whether a damages limitation in the forum (such as a noneconomic damages cap) applies to an out-of-state tort turns on conflict-of-laws characterization and the interaction between substantive governing law and forum procedure.
- Trial courts have broad discretion over discovery management, enforcement of scheduling orders, admissibility of expert testimony, and compelled physical examinations, but discretionary rulings may be reversed if based on incorrect legal premises or if they cause unfair prejudice.
- Warning labels may be admissible for relevant, non-hearsay purposes (such as notice, foreseeability, or recognition of risk), and categorical exclusion without proper evidentiary analysis may be error.
- Demonstrative evidence decisions rest within the trial court’s discretion and typically depend on similarity of conditions and risk of misleading the jury.
- Attorney’s fee sanctions require adequate authority and a sufficient connection between the sanctioned party (or counsel) and the conduct; a party generally may not be sanctioned solely for an insurer’s failure to appear absent proper legal basis.

## Conclusion

The appellate court vacated and remanded a personal-injury judgment arising from a Delaware incident litigated in Maryland, applying Delaware substantive tort law under lex loci delicti, reversing an attorney’s fee sanction tied to an insurer’s nonappearance, and directing reconsideration of punitive-damages and related trial rulings under the correct governing standards.


Naughton v. Bankier, 691 A.2d 712 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1997)