IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR BALTIMORE CITY, MARYLAND
Ernesto Fair- Plaintiff v Diana Smith - Defendant |
* * * * |
CASE NO.: 05-C-00-1234 |
PLAINTIFF’S FIRST REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS
Plaintiff, Ernesto Fair, by and through his attorneys, Ronald V. Miller, Jr., and Miller & Zois, LLC, requests that Defendant, Diana Smith, admit or deny the following statements of law. If objection is made, please state the reason for the objection. Please specifically deny the matter or set forth in detail the reasons why the answering party cannot truthfully admit or deny the matter. Also, please note that the term "car crash" refers to the motor vehicle collision which is the subject of this lawsuit and which occurred on or about March 17, 2002.
REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION
1. Admit that you were personally served with the Writ of Summons
and Complaint in the above-captioned case.
2. Admit that a resident of your household was personally served
with the Writ of Summons and Complaint.
3. Admit that you have no basis to assert as a defense or affirmative
defense to the subject accident, lack of personal jurisdiction.
4. Admit that you were driving a 2000 Toyota with Maryland motor
vehicle tags on the date of the car crash.
5. Admit that you were the registered owner of a 2000 Toyota with
Maryland motor vehicle tags on the date of the car crash.
6. Admit that immediately prior to impact, the vehicle operated
by Plaintiff was in the oncoming lane on the date of the car crash.
7. Admit that immediately prior to impact, you failed to negotiate
a turn on the date of the car crash.
8. Admit that the front of the vehicle you were operating struck
the front of the vehicle the Plaintiff was operating on the date
of the car crash.
9. Admit that Plaintiff did not contribute to the cause of the
car crash.
10. Admit that the vehicle that you were driving struck the Plaintiff's
vehicle head-on on the date of the car crash.
11. Admit that had you negotiated the turn at a slower speed,
you would have avoided striking the Plaintiff's vehicle on the
date of the car crash.
12. Admit that your actions were the sole cause of the car crash.
13. Admit that no other entity contributed to cause the car crash.
14. Admit that Plaintiff was injured as a result of the car crash.
15. Admit that Plaintiff was injured as a result of the car crash
caused by you.
16. Admit that you have no evidence of any kind that Ernesto Fair
may have caused or contributed to the occurrence by stopping short
in the travel portion of the roadway.
17. Significant injury can occur in a high-impact motor vehicle
accident.
18. The Defendant has no evidence to support the affirmative defense
that the
Plaintiff assumed the risk of his injuries.
19. The Defendant has no evidence to support the affirmative defense
that the
Plaintiff was not contributorily negligent.
20. The Defendant has no evidence to support the affirmative defense
that the Plaintiff’s case is barred by the Statute of Limitations.
21. The Defendant has no evidence to support the affirmative defense
that the Plaintiff’s case fails to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted.
22. The Plaintiff did sustain injuries as a result of the accident
which took place on
March 17, 2002.
23. The Plaintiff did require necessary medical treatment as a
result of the accident that took place on March 17, 2002.
24. You have given a signed statement in this case.
25. You consumed drugs, medicines, or alcoholic beverages within
twenty-four (24) hours prior to said occurrence.
26. You were under care of a physician at the time of the occurrence.
27. You maintained insurance that covers your liability in this
lawsuit.
28. The injury to Plaintiff’s right knee is such that he
cannot twist, squat, dance or take a long walk without pain.
29. The attached medical records Bates stamped 01 - 105 are authentic.
30. The medical treatment rendered by University of Maryland Medical
Center was medically necessary and causally related to the car
crash complained of in the Plaintiff’s Complaint.
31. The medical bill from University of Maryland Medical Center
was reasonable regarding the treatment rendered for the car crash
complained of in the Plaintiff’s Complaint.
32. The medical treatment rendered by Shock Trauma Associates,
P.A., was medically necessary and causally related to the car
crash complained of in the Plaintiff’s Complaint.
33. The medical bill from Shock Trauma Associates, P.A., was reasonable
regarding the treatment rendered for the car crash complained
of in the Plaintiff’s Complaint.
34. The medical treatment rendered by Injury Rehab, LLC,
was medically necessary and causally related to the car crash
complained of in the Plaintiff’s Complaint.
35. The medical bill from Injury Rehab, LLC, was reasonable
regarding the treatment rendered for the car crash complained
of in the Plaintiff’s Complaint.
36. The medical treatment rendered by Injury Rehab, LLC
was medically necessary and causally related to the car crash
complained of in the Plaintiff’s Complaint.
37. The medical bill from JonesHealthcare was reasonable
regarding the treatment rendered for the car crash complained
of in the Plaintiff’s Complaint.
38. The medical treatment rendered by Jones Physical
Therapy was medically necessary and causally related to the car
crash complained of in the Plaintiff’s Complaint.
39. The medical bill from Jones Physical Therapy was
reasonable regarding the treatment rendered for the car crash
complained of in the Plaintiff’s Complaint.
40. The medical treatment rendered by Howard County Ambulatory
Surgical Center was medically necessary and causally related to
the car crash complained of in the Plaintiff’s Complaint.
41. The medical bill from Howard County Ambulatory Surgical Center
was reasonable regarding the treatment rendered for the car crash
complained of in the Plaintiff’s Complaint.
42. The medical treatment rendered by Susquehanna Orthopaedics
Associates was medically necessary and causally related to the
car crash complained of in the Plaintiff’s Complaint.
43. The medical bill from Susquehanna Orthopaedics Associates
was reasonable regarding the treatment rendered for the car crash
complained of in the Plaintiff’s Complaint.
44. The purchase of the moist heating pad from Liberty Orthopedic
and Supply Company was medically necessary and causally related
to the car crash complained of in the Plaintiff’s Complaint.
45. The bill for the moist heating pad from Liberty Orthopedic
and Supply Company was reasonable regarding the treatment rendered
for the car crash complained of in the Plaintiff’s Complaint.
46. Your insurance company offered only $50,000 to settle this
lawsuit.
47. Plaintiff continues to have pain, weakness, loss of function
and loss of endurance as a result of his right leg injury.
48. Plaintiff continues to have pain, weakness, loss of function
and loss of endurance in his right leg injury as a result of the
accident.
49. Plaintiff suffered an injury to his right leg.
50. Plaintiff suffered an injury to his right leg from the car
crash.
51. Plaintiff suffered an injury to his right leg as a result
of the car crash caused by your negligence.
MILLER & ZOIS, LLC
Ronald
V. Miller, Jr.
Empire
Towers, Suite 615
7310
Ritchie Highway
Glen
Burnie, Maryland 21061
(410)553-6000
(410)760-8922
(Fax)
Attorney
for the Plaintiff
Certificate of Service
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing First Request for Admissions was sent via U.S. Mail, first-class, postage prepaid, this 5th day of February, 2004, to:
Diana Smith
604 Piedmont Point Drive
Severna Park, Maryland 21146
Ronald V. Miller, Jr.
Back to Sample Discovery
Back to Sample Request
for Admissions
