In the Circuit Court of

Montgomery County
State of Maryland
___________,
Plaintiff,
Case No:
-Versus__________,
Defendant

REPLY TO DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
AND NOW, COMES Plaintiff to this Honorable Court hereby respond to Defendant's Opposition
on the Motion for Summary Judgment.
ARGUMENTS:
1. Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment is in accordance to Maryland Laws.
Under rule 2-501 of the Maryland Laws, any party may file a Motion for Summary Judgment
on all or part of an action on the ground that there is no genuine dispute to any material fact and that
the party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The motion shall be supported by affidavit if filed
before the day on which the adverse party's initial pleading or motion is filed.
The Maryland Law specifically states that affidavits are mandatory if the motion for summary
judgment is filed before the defendant's initial pleading, which would be his Answer. It should be noted
that plaintiff filed her Motion for Summary Judgment on ___, days after defendant filed his Answer.
Nowhere in the law is it prescribed for plaintiff to submit affidavits with the motion for Summary
Judgment if defendant has already submitted his Answer.
2. There exists no genuine issues as defendant admitted most of the material facts.
Plaintiff reiterates that there is no genuine issue since the defendant has admitted to the
material facts of the case. Defendant admitted that he was operating the vehicle at the date, time and
place of the incident.
Defendants statement that he saw plaintiff fell down near his vehicle (Exh. 1, Affidavit of
______, p. 2), is an implied admission that his vehicle has struck plaintiff causing the latter to lose her
bearing and fall on the ground.
Defendant's allegations that he only saw the plaintiff when she darted out in front of his vehicle
is contrary to human nature. No individual in his/her sane mind would willingly and voluntarily place
herself in harm's way/ This particular statement by the defendant bolsters plaintiff's assertion that
defendant was driving his vehicle with no lights on and failed to give a warning. The plaintiff could
have easily seen the defendant's car had the latter's headlights were turned on and plaintiff would not
have crossed the road had she heard defendant honked at her.

3. Plaintiff has set forth a prima facie cause of action for gross negligence on the part of
the defendant.
As sufficiently stated in plaintiff's Complaint, plaintiff, carefully threaded the solid crosswalk
marking considered as pedestrian lane, stopping at the island to observe both sides of the road for
any approaching vehicles before she crossed to the other side. As plaintiff was approaching the
sidewalk, a car suddenly swerved, hitting the plaintiff and causing her to fall to the pavement. At all
times herein mentioned, the Plaintiff had the right of way and was lawfully walking on the designated
pedestrian lane. 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, to drive with headlights on,
to provide warning sign or sound as it approached, and to control the vehicle which struck the
Plaintiff.
The Defendant had a duty to act reasonably and use due care while driving in all instances.
The Defendant had a duty to maintain a proper lookout , to reduce speed to avoid an accident, to yield
to the right of way of pedestrians, to exercise reasonable care in the operation of the motor vehicle
under the circumstances then and there existing. The Defendant breached that duty of care by failing
to pay proper attention to the roadway, failing to pay proper attention to pedestrian traffic, failing to
maintain a proper lookout, failing to reduce speed to avoid an accident, failing to drive with headlights
and failing to control his vehicle in order to avoid striking a pedestrian. As a direct and proximate result
of the negligence of the Defendant, the plaintiff has suffered bodily injuries in her knees. physical pain
and mental anguish, severe and substantial emotional distress exhibiting fear of cars and even of
crossing a small distance.
4. Summary Judgment should be granted as Plaintiff has already submitted a Written
deposition in Court
The summary judgment should be granted due to lack of further discovery required. All the
facts have been enumerated. Defendant has admitted in no plain terms of his culpability.
PLEA
The Plaintiff hereby seeks the immediate judgment of this honorable Court for lack of genuine
issue as to the material facts in the case. The defendant is guilty of gross negligence and his reckless
behaviour led to the accident and injury of herein plaintiff. The plaintiff hereby demands judgment
against the Defendant in the amount of ______representing the punitive damage that the Defendant
incurred for his gross negligence in driving with reckless and conscious disregard of the safety and life
of others, and for his gross violation of Maryland traffic laws. Defendant should be punished to deter
him from acting in the same dangerous manner in the future.
Respectfully submitted,
_________________________________