Seaborne-Worsley v. Mintiens

183 A.3d 141 (2018)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

P and her husband drove to a restaurant to pick up a take-out dinner. P's husband drove the car - a four-door sedan of which P was the sole owner. P rode in the front passenger's seat. P's husband stopped the car perpendicular to handicapped parking spaces, placed it in park, got out of the car, and walked to the carry out window, leaving P alone in the car. P was supposed to take her husband's place in the driver's seat and park the car while he retrieved their food. Mintiens (D) had been at the restaurant and he obtained a take-out order for his family's dinner and set out for the parking lot, where he had parked his truck opposite the handicapped spaces.

D did not notice any cars parked behind his truck at that time. According to D, in the space of approximately 20 seconds, he walked to the passenger side of his truck, placed the food in the passenger seat, went back around to the driver's side, and got into his truck. P testified at trial that she was already sitting alone in her car when, in her peripheral vision, she saw D walk across the parking lot and approach his truck, which was parked just about two and a half feet from the car in which P sat. According to D, after he got into the truck, he looked in his rearview mirror and driver side mirror (but not his passenger-side mirror) before backing up. D backed his truck into P's car. P testified that she was about to unbuckle her seat belt to get out and move her car when she saw the truck backing towards her. She braced herself against the window with her right hand, also hoping to catch D's attention. The truck hit the back passenger-side door of P's car. D offered to pay for the damage. P later sought medical treatment for injuries to her neck, back, left arm and shoulder, and right hand. P sued D. The District Court explained that P's husband failed to exercise ordinary care when he parked perpendicular to a handicapped space, right behind D's truck, rather than in a parking space in the restaurant lot. The District Court found that this negligence contributed to the accident. The District Court relied on the doctrine of imputed negligence and entered judgment in favor of D. P appealed. The Circuit Court affirmed and P appealed.