Maryland Accident Lawyer Analysis of
Andrade v. Housein, 147 Md. App. 617 (2002)
Background
Seventy-five percent of all rear-end
car crashes involve a car that is either stopping or has already
stopped. More than half of these kinds of crashes occur at or
near intersections. Both human and property damage losses from
rear-end crashes costs the citizens of Maryland millions of dollars
each year in medical expenses, lost productive time and numerous
property damage insurance claims. The Department of Transportation's
study estimates that the injury costs alone for rear-end car and truck crashes
exceed $5 billion per year.
Other studies have concluded that the
great majority of rear-end accidents in Maryland and around the
country are caused by drivers following too closely to the vehicle
in front of them. Improper following distance was the main factor
in the majority of auto accidents in Maryland.
Statutes in most states prescribe the
distance to be maintained by a motor vehicle from the one ahead
in general language, such as a "reasonable and prudent"
distance. In Maryland, the rule is stated as follows: "The
driver of a motor vehicle may not follow another vehicle more
closely than is reasonable and prudent, having due regard for
the speed of the other vehicle and of the traffic on and the condition
of the highway." Maryland
Transportation Code Annotated, § 21-310(a) (2005). Accordingly,
drivers following another motorist must remain a sufficient distance
behind so as to be able to avoid an auto accident.
The issue Maryland accident lawyers face
is how to prove negligence from the occurrence of a rear end accident.
Stated differently, must Maryland personal injury lawyers prove
some specific act of negligence or can we infer fault in a rear
end accident? This Montgomery County Court
of Special Appeals case offers insight into how this situation
is handled in personal injury cases in Maryland.
Andrade v. Housein
The facts of this personal injury case
are quite simple. The Plaintiff, Jose Andrade, stopped his vehicle
at an intersection, waiting for traffic to clear so that he could
turn right. Mr. Andrade was stopped for approximately 25 seconds
when his car was struck in the rear by an automobile driven by
the Defendant, Ciro Panemeno. By coincidence, both Plaintiff and
Defendant were friends who were heading to a shopping center in
Montgomery County. The impact of this rear-end car accident drove
Mr. Andrade car four to six feet into the intersecting road. After
the collision, the defendant backed his car directly behind him,
driven by Shanaz Housein. The judge dismissed Ms. Housein, who
had insurance with Nationwide and was represented by Nationwide's
Maryland attorneys based in Annapolis, as a defendant after she
testified that the damage to the front of her car was from an
earlier accident, not from Mr. Panemeno backing into her. As a
result of this auto accident, the Plaintiff suffered a neck injury
of unspecified severity.
After the Plaintiff put on his evidence,
the Defendant, who had insurance with State Farm was defended
by one of State Farm's in-house Maryland attorneys from their
Prince George's County office, moved for a directed verdict. The
judge stated that:
The only thing I have is a rear end collision between Mr. Andrade's car in the front and Mr. Panemeno's car to the rear of him. They did bump one another, or actually Mr. Panemeno did bump Mr. Andrade. That is the state of the evidence at this time, but all that has shown to me is that an accident occurred, and I have nothing else. Nobody saw him following too closely, we do not have any skid marks indicating perhaps speed. I do not know the distance that these cars were following one another. I have no indicia of negligence whatever. All we have is the happening of an accident. I will grant the motion.The Maryland Court of Special Appeals agreed with the Montgomery Court trial court judge that the only evidence presented from the accident attorneys was that of a rear end auto accident. But the court ruled that, in Maryland, when a accident is caused by the "operation of some instrumentality in the exclusive control of defendant, for which no explanation can be offered by the plaintiff, under circumstances which involve a breach of duty on defendant's part to avoid injuring plaintiff through the operation of such instrumentality, a presumption of negligence arises from the happening of the accident." In other words, in rear end car accident, Maryland injury attorneys will receive a presumption in favor of their injured clients that the rear end collusion was caused by the rear-ending drivers negligence.
Take Home Message for Maryland Accident Attorneys and Injury Victims
This case make clear that there is
an evidentiary presumption of negligence that arises in Maryland
personal injury cases when a motor vehicle is lawfully stopped
on a highway awaiting for traffic to clear before entering an
intersecting highway and that vehicle is suddenly struck from
behind by another vehicle. The presumption of negligence in Maryland
rear end accidents is, however, rebuttable by the defendant's
accident lawyer. The procedural consequences, once a prima
facie case is established, require that the person against
whom the presumption is directed assume the burden of going forward
with the evidence, but the burden of persuasion remains with the
plaintiff. In other words, the burden of proof accident attorneys
in Maryland must meet still remains with the plaintiff. Plaintiff
must, for example, prove that the personal injuries suffered in
the accident were caused by the Defendant's negligence. But once
a prima facie case is established by showing evidence of a rear
end collision, the defendant In Maryland has the burden to overcome
the presumption of negligence.
Back to Maryland
Law Update
Back to Maryland
Personal Injury Attorney Help Center
See also Rear End Accident Safety
See also Rear End Truck Accidents
See also Presumption of Negligence in Maryland Rear End Car Accident
See also Maryland Personal Injury Lawyer Blog
