Sample Requests for Admission in Pedestrian Accident Case

ABOUT THIS FORM

This is a example of a first set of plaintiff’s Requests for Admissions in a serious pedestrian accident case in Maryland Circuit Court. Under Maryland Rule 2-424 a party can serve these written requests asking another party in the case to admit (or deny) that certain statements of fact are true. They can also be used to ask parties to admit that certain documents are genuine. Requests for Admissions are a useful tool in accident litigation. You are never going to win the case with them. However, admissions can help narrow down the disputed issues, lock the defendant in on certain points, and tee up your case for trial.

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF MARYLAND FOR BALTIMORE CITY

NANCY WESTING,                                          *

Plaintiff,                                                 *         Case No.:

v.                                                                    *

SAMANTHA DAVIS                                         *

Defendant. 

    *        *        *        *        *        *        *        *        *        *        *        *        *        *        *              PLAINTIFF’S FIRST REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS

The Plaintiff, Nancy Westing (“Plaintiff”), by and through her attorneys, Laura G. Zois and Miller & Zois, LLC, requests that the Defendant, Samantha Davis (“Defendant”), admit or deny the following statements of fact.  If objection is made, please state the reason for the objection.

REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION

(1) The Defendant was properly served with the summons and complaint in the above – captioned case.

(2) The Defendant has no basis to assert as a defense or affirmative defense to the subject accident, lack of personal jurisdiction.

(3) The Defendant has no evidence of any kind that the Plaintiff may have caused or contributed to the occurrence.

(4) The Defendant has no evidence to support the affirmative defense that the Plaintiff assumed the risk of her injuries.

(5) The Defendant has no evidence to support the affirmative defense that the Plaintiff was contributorily negligent.

(6) The Defendant has no evidence to support the affirmative defense that the Plaintiff’s case is barred by the Statute of Limitations.

(7) 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.

INJURIES AND TREATMENT

(1) The Plaintiff did sustain injuries as a result of the incident complained of in the Plaintiff’s Complaint.

(2) The Plaintiff did require necessary medical treatment as a result of the incident complained of in the Plaintiff’s Complaint.

(3) The attached documents bates stamped at 1 – 15 are authentic.

(4) The medical treatment rendered by representatives of Charles Emergency Physicians, P.A. at Greater Baltimore Medical Center and bill for services rendered was fair, reasonable, necessary, and causally related to the car crash complained of in the Plaintiff’s Complaint.

(5) The attached documents bates stamped at 16 – 17 are authentic.

(6) The medical treatment rendered by Michelle L. Lucci, M.D. and bill for services rendered was fair, reasonable, necessary, and causally related to the car crash complained of in the Plaintiff’s Complaint.

(7) The attached documents bates stamped at 18 – 33 are authentic.

(8) The medical treatment rendered by David Palmer, M.D. of Orthopaedic Specialty Center and bill for services rendered was fair, reasonable, necessary, and causally related to the car crash complained of in the Plaintiff’s Complaint.

(9) The attached documents bates stamped at 34 – 36 are authentic.

(10) The medical treatment rendered by Advanced Radiology and bill for services rendered was fair, reasonable, necessary, and causally related to the car crash complained of in the Plaintiff’s Complaint.

(11) The attached documents bates stamped at 37 – 78 are authentic.

(12) The medical treatment rendered by Dr. David Palmer at Greater Baltimore Medical Center and bill for services rendered was fair, reasonable, necessary, and causally related to the car crash complained of in the Plaintiff’s Complaint.

(13) The attached documents bates stamped at 79 – 94 are authentic.

(14) The medical treatment rendered by representatives of Charles Emergency Physicians, P.A. and Advanced Radiology at Greater Baltimore Medical Center and bills for services rendered was fair, reasonable, necessary, and causally related to the car crash complained of in the Plaintiff’s Complaint.

(15) The attached documents bates stamped at 95 – 114 are authentic.

(16) The medical treatment rendered by Hereford Physical Therapy & Sports Medicine and bill for services rendered was fair, reasonable, necessary, and causally related to the car crash complained of in the Plaintiff’s Complaint.

(17) The attached documents bates stamped at 115 – 116 are authentic.

(18) The medical treatment rendered by ProScan Imaging and bill for services rendered was fair, reasonable, necessary, and causally related to the car crash complained of in the Plaintiff’s Complaint.

(19) The attached documents bates stamped at 117 – 121 are authentic.

(20) The Plaintiff incurred lost wages as a result of the incident complained of in the Plaintiff’s Complaint.

(21) The Plaintiff suffers from a permanent injury as a result of the incident complained of in the Plaintiff’s complaint.

FACTS

(1) On or about April 17, 2019, the Plaintiff, a pedestrian, was lawfully walking on the sidewalk of York Road passing the parking lot egress for Kentucky Fried Chicken.

(2) At the same time and place, the Defendant was operating a motor vehicle entering Kentucky Fried Chicken through the York Road egress.

(3) At all times herein mentioned, the Plaintiff had the right of way and was lawfully walking on the sidewalk of York Road.

(4) The Defendant failed to pay attention to pedestrian traffic, failed to maintain a proper lookout, to reduce speed to avoid an accident, to yield to the right of way, and control the vehicle and struck the Plaintiff.

(5) The Plaintiff did nothing that would make seeing her crossing the sidewalk difficult.

(6) The Plaintiff crossed the sidewalk using a reasonably expected pace.

(7) Had you been paying attention you would have been able to see the Plaintiff in the sidewalk.

(8) There was property damage to your car as the result of the contact with the Plaintiff.

Respectfully submitted,

MILLER & ZOIS, LLC

 

                                                                       

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF MARYLAND FOR BALTIMORE CITY

NANCY WESTING,                                          *

Plaintiff,                                                 *         Case No.:

v.                                                                    *

SAMANTHA DAVIS                                         *

Defendant. 

    *        *        *        *        *        *        *        *        *        *        *        *        *        *        *              NOTICE REGARDING DISCOVERY

I, Laura G. Zois, hereby certify that on this 26th day of December, 2019, I served on all counsel in the above-captioned matter via U.S. first class mail, postage prepaid, this Notice Regarding Discovery and Plaintiff’s First Request for Admissions.  I will retain the original of this document in my possession, without alterations, until the case is concluded in this Court, the time for noting an appeal has expired and any appeal has been decided.

Respectfully submitted,

MILLER & ZOIS, LLC