Memorandum

To: Professor Dembeck

From: Patricia Bienkowski
Date: 11/30/2016
Re: Caffery Negligence Case

Question Presented
The issue is whether negligence occurred when Lewis failed to come to a stop while operating
his automobile behind the plaintiff, so as to cause his vehicle to collide into the back of the
vehicle being operated by the plaintiff, Neil Caffery.

Brief Answer
Lewiss failure to diligently operate his vehicle by not coming to a complete stop, texting, and
striking Cafferys vehicle constitute negligence.

Facts
Our client, Neil Caffery, a 45-year-old teacher, wants to bring forth a case for negligence against
Ted Lewis, a 50-year-old father, who failed to operate his vehicle diligently by not to come to a
stop behind the plaintiff, texting, and causing a Collison without any contributory negligence
whatsoever by the plaintiff. As a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid collision, which was
caused by the negligence of the Defendant, Ted Lewis, the plaintiff, was suddenly thrown
against the inside of the automobile, thereby causing the Plaintiff to suffer severe pain and
permanent injury including but not limited to, his head, neck, both arms, shoulders, right foot,
knew, low back, thighs, and buttocks, all of which have caused him great pain and mental
anguish. As a further direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Defendant, Ted Lewis,
the Plaintiff, Neil Caffery, has been forced to lose time from his employment and has suffered a
loss of wages for which he seeks remuneration.
Analysis
The elements of a tort are duty, breach of duty, causation, and damages. In this case, the
Defendant, Ted Lewis, owed, our client, Neil Caffery a duty of care when driving not only to
keep a reasonable and safe distance to avoid injuring others but to also not text while driving.
The MVA states Always maintain a safe distance between your vehicle and the one ahead of
you. Most rear-end collisions are caused by following too closely. A minimum following
distance of 3 to 4 seconds is recommended under ideal driving conditions. The duty imposed
upon the driver of the rear vehicle under Md. Code Ann. art. 66 1/2, 224 (a) (now Md. Code
Ann., Transp. 11-310) not to follow another vehicle more closely than is reasonable and
prudent, having due regard for the speed of such vehicle and the traffic and the condition of the
highway was breached. 21-901.1. Reckless and negligent driving under title 21 subtitle 9 of the
Annotated code of Maryland states, Negligent driving. -- A person is guilty of negligent driving
if he drives a motor vehicle in a careless or imprudent manner that endangers any property or the
life or person of any individual. Md. Code Ann., Transp. 21-901.1 (LexisNexis, Lexis
Advance through October 1, 2016 and all chapters of the 2016 Regular Session of the Maryland
General Assembly) State use of Thompson v. Emerson & Morgan Coal Co., 150 Md. 429, 133
A. 601 (1926) Where an 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. There was a breach of this duty because Ted Lewis was careless in
operating his vehicle, did not have a safe following distance, and did not prevent injury which
resulted in a collision due to his negligence. 21-1124.3. Violation of 21-1124.1 or 21-
1124.2 that causes accident resulting in death or serious bodily injury prohibited. A person may
not commit a violation of 21-1124.1 or 21-1124.2 of this subtitle that causes an accident that
directly results in the death or, as defined in 27-113 of this article, serious bodily injury of
another. Chiles v. State, No. 127, 2016 Md. App. LEXIS 217 (App. Nov. 4, 2016) Sgt.
Armiger could see the appellant holding a "flip phone in his [right] hand and . . . manipulating . .
the phone as he was driving." Sgt. Armiger could see the phone clearly because of the
backlighting on the screen. Sgt. Armiger believed that the appellant was texting while driving in
violation of Md. Code (1977, 2012 Repl. Vol., 2014 Supp.), section 21-1124.1 of the
Transportation Article ("Transp."). In our case, the defendant violated 21-1124.1. Text
messaging prohibited because he was sending a text message to his daughter at the time of the
collision. The defendant caused a Collison to occur without any contributory negligence
whatsoever by the plaintiff. As a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid collision, the
plaintiff, was suddenly thrown against the inside of the automobile, thereby causing the Plaintiff
to suffer severe pain and permanent injury including but not limited to, his head, neck, both
arms, shoulders, right foot, knew, low back, thighs, and buttocks, all of which have caused him
great pain and mental anguish. As a further direct and proximate result of the negligence, the
Plaintiff has been forced to lose time from his employment and has suffered a loss of wages.
Bernales breached a duty of care owed to Chaffman and that his negligence was the proximate
cause of these damages. Chaffman incurred current and past medical expenses in excess of
$20,000 and Chaffman will incur in excess of $300,000 in future medical bills and expenses.
Chaffman sought $13,700 in past medical expenses, $22,000 in future medical expenses,
$15,760 in lost wages over 25 weeks, and an unspecified amount for pain and suffering. Court
offered judgment in his favor in the amount of $368,000. Based on the results of this case, it is
more than likely that our client will receive compensation for injuries and loss of wages.

Conclusion
Lewis negligently operated his vehicle and caused a collision to occur which resulted in not only
several physical injuries and mental anguish, but also loss of wages.