Domingos Ayala v. Lee
81 A.3d 584
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2013Background
- On Sept. 27, 2010 a Bay State truck driven by Robert Lee left the travel lane and struck a parked Ebb Tide truck on the right shoulder of Route 50; two workers (Ayala and Santacruz) suffered serious lower-extremity injuries and the driver Comegys was killed.
- Ayala and Santacruz (undocumented immigrants from El Salvador) sued Lee and Bay State for negligence; jury returned verdict for defendants after a six-day trial.
- At trial Lee testified by deposition that he remembered seeing a vehicle to his left, next remembered crashing through brush on the right, did not remember seeing or striking the parked truck, and could only speculate he might have turned the wheel right.
- Plaintiffs moved for judgment on liability at the close of defendants’ case; the trial court denied the motion and the matter went to the jury.
- Before trial plaintiffs moved to exclude evidence of their immigration status; the trial court allowed such evidence as relevant to lost-wage damages and credibility; appellate court reversed liability ruling and remanded for damages, addressing admissibility of immigration evidence for guidance on remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court should grant judgment as a matter of law on negligence | Lee’s movement from lane into shoulder and failure to keep lookout create presumption of negligence; motion for judgment should be granted | Statutes on lane changes and controlled-access do not apply to movement to shoulder; if they do, they create only an inference for the jury | Granted: appellate court held Lee was negligent as a matter of law for moving into shoulder when unsafe and failing to keep a proper lookout; reversed denial of motion for judgment and vacated verdict |
| Whether evidence of plaintiffs’ undocumented status was admissible at trial | Immigration status is irrelevant and prejudicial to liability and damages; should be excluded | Status is relevant to lost-future-wages and credibility; IRCA and Hoffman counsel that status matters to wage awards | Partially denied at trial but on appeal court held federal law does not categorically bar wage/medical damages; immigration status may be relevant to damages but is highly prejudicial and should be tightly limited on remand |
| Admissibility of de bene esse deposition of Social Security-card holder | (Plaintiffs sought exclusion) | Deposition admissible | Not reached by appellate court (decision on liability moots further review) |
| Requested jury instructions / claimed instructional errors | Plaintiffs argued instructions were improper and prejudicial | Trial court declined several requested instructions | Not reached by appellate court (decision on liability moots further review) |
Key Cases Cited
- Weishaar v. Canestrale, 241 Md. 676 (1966) (negligence as a matter of law requires evidence permitting but one reasonable conclusion)
- Dashiell v. Moore, 177 Md. 657 (1940) (a driver who says he looked but did not see what was plainly visible may be found negligent)
- Fry v. Carter, 375 Md. 341 (2003) (rejecting unavoidable-accident instruction; last-minute happenings should not supplant negligence analysis)
- Design Kitchen & Baths v. Lagos, 388 Md. 718 (2005) (IRCA and Hoffman do not preempt state law entitling undocumented workers to workers’ compensation; Hoffman’s scope is limited)
- Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc. v. NLRB, 535 U.S. 137 (2002) (federal immigration policy limited the NLRB’s award of backpay to undocumented workers)
- Morris v. Williams, 258 Md. 625 (1970) (drivers have duty to observe road and surroundings; duty to keep lookout)