IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY, MARYLAND
ANA MAJANO- Plaintiff v MILES DIXON- Defendant, |
* * * * * | CASE
NO. 05-C-05-095553 |
| * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * | ||
PLAINTIFF’S REPLY TO DEFENDANT’S
MOTION FOR JUDGMENT NOV
OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL
Ana Majano, by and through her attorneys, Ronald V. Miller, Jr., and Miller & Zois, LLC, hereby requests that Defendant Miles Dixon’s Motion for Judgment NOV, or in the alternative, Motion for New Trial, be denied. In further support, Plaintiff states as follows:
I. Defendant's Allegation of Juror Misconduct
Simply put, Defendant alleges that Juror #2 lied to this Court. Given the severity of the charge, one might expect that Defendant would be armed with facts to support his motion. Instead Defendant offers only an affidavit from cross-plaintiff's attorney making hearsay allegations as to what this juror told her. Yet the affidavit of Ms. Cleaveland does not support Defendant's argument. The affidavit states that Juror #2 was an office manager for a law firm for 20 years. It does not suggest that she is an office manager. The voir dire proposed by the Defendant and asked of the jury on this issue asked, "Is any member of the panel or any immediate family member an attorney, paralegal, legal secretary, court employee or otherwise connected, by either employment or profession, with the legal or judicial system?” The question specifically asks for a present tense connection. Defendant erroneously seeks to infer that Juror #2 lied to the Court when she simply answered the question posed.
II. Plaintiff's Met Her Burden of Proof
Defendant argues
once again here that Plaintiff did not make a prima facie case
and the jury verdict was erroneous. Plaintiff's case in chief
presented the only unbiased witness to this accident, Ms. Herrick,
who stated that Plaintiff had a green light when the accident
occurred and that Plaintiff was on Quarterfield Road. In addition
to Ms. Herrick, Plaintiff testified to these facts as well. Mr.
Cruz stated that he was at the light prior to Thelma Avenue when
the accident occurred and that Plaintiff had just been in front
of him but that he was stuck at a red light and Plaintiff continued
down the road.
Defendant’s motion also references
Mr. Mitchell testimony. Defendant erroneously contends that Mr.
Mitchell placed Plaintiff’s vehicle on a certain road at
the time of the accident. In fact, Mr. Mitchell plainly stated
that as he approached the light, which was green, he was not aware
of any particular vehicles and it was not until he saw a van coming
towards him that he first was aware of another vehicle. He was
not able to state which car was on which road prior to the accident.
But even assuming arguendo, that Mr.
Mitchell testified as Defendant suggests, a fact Plaintiff specifically
denies, Defendant's argument still fails. Plaintiff could have
offered in her case-in-chief five witness that offered differing
testimony and still met her burden because the jury could have
chosen to believe her at the exclusion of the other witnesses.
To support its erroneous interpretation of law, Defendants seek
support from Dennard v. Green, 355 Md. 305, 322 (1994).
There is, however, an obvious distinction between Dennard
and the instant case. In Dennard, the Plaintiff makes equal arguments
as the culpability of two defendants. In this case, Plaintiff
was clear as to the version of the testimony she wanted the jury
to believe - her own. The jury did.
III. Jury's Verdict Was Not Erroneous
Defendant further contends that
Ms. Herrick was the only witness to support the position that
Defendant was responsible for the accident. While it is true that
Ms. Herrick stated that she was traveling on Quarterfield Road
at the time of the accident with a green light, Defendant incorrectly
contends she was the only witness. Plaintiff also testified that
she was on Quarterfield Road and was struck as she entered the
intersection. The jury chose to believe Plaintiff and Ms. Herrick.
Defendant may still disagree but this does not mean that a reasonable
jury could not chose to believe the testimony of Ms. Herrick and
the Plaintiff.
In Defendant's final argument,
he takes one final liberty with the facts and the testimony in
this case. Defendant blithely maintains the "physical evidence
provides only one conclusion." In fact, Defendant's own expert
admitted that the position of Defendant’s vehicle was consistent
with him traveling from Thelma Avenue. If this is the case, the
Defendant would have been on the side of the vehicle where Plaintiff’s
vehicle was impacted. Based on this testimony from various witnesses,
the jury’s verdict was reasonable and not clearly erroneous.
Respectfully submitted,
MILLER
& ZOIS, LLC
Ronald V. Miller, Jr.
Empire Towers, Suite 1001
7310 Ritchie Highway
Glen Burnie, Maryland 21061
(410)553-6000
(410)760-8922 (Fax)
Attorney for the Plaintiff
