10064D-12192019-N018148 Lawsuit Jason Arthur Taylor About Totaled BMW

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND
------------------------------X
:
JASON TAYLOR, :
:
Plaintiff, :
:
v. : Civil No. 10064D
:
JOANNE MARTINS NUNES LEDOUX, :
:
Defendant. :
:
------------------------------X
APPEAL HEARING
Rockville, Maryland December 19, 2019
DEPOSITION SERVICES, INC.

12321 Middlebrook Road, Suite 210
Germantown, Maryland 20874
(301) 881-3344
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND
------------------------------X
:
JASON TAYLOR, :
:
Plaintiff, :
:
v. : Civil No. 10064D
:
JOANNE MARTINS NUNES LEDOUX, :
:
Defendant. :
:
------------------------------X
Rockville, Maryland
December 19, 2019
WHEREUPON, the proceedings in the above-entitled
matter commenced
BEFORE: THE HONORABLE DEBRA L. DWYER, JUDGE
APPEARANCES:
FOR THE PLAINTIFF:
JASON TAYLOR, Pro se

2710 Calgary Avenue
Kensington, Maryland 20895
FOR THE DEFENDANT:
DAVID F. RYDER, Esq.

Brault, Graham, LLC
101 South Washington Street
Rockville, Maryland 20850
I N D E X
WITNESSES DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS
For the Court:
Rebecca Zeltinger 44 -- -- --
For the Plaintiff:
Jason Taylor 22 37 47 --
Rebecca Zeltinger 6 16 -- --
For the Defendant:
Thomas Clark 55 80 -- --
Joanne Ledoux 87 91 -- --
EXHIBITS MARKED RECEIVED
For the Plaintiff:
Exhibit No. 1 -- 13
Exhibit No. 2 26 26
Exhibit No. 3 -- 36
For the Defendant:
Exhibit No. 1 -- 59
Exhibit No. 2 -- 63
Exhibit No. 3 -- 68
Page
Closing Arguments:
Jason Taylor, Pro se 94

For the Plaintiff
David Ryder, Esq. 96

For the Defendant
Rebuttal for the Plaintiff:
Jason Taylor, Pro se 100
Judge's Ruling 106

4
1 P R O C E E D I N G S
2 THE BAILIFF: All rise.
3 THE COURT: Good morning, everyone, you can have a
4 seat. Thank you.
5 THE CLERK: Now calling District Court Appeal Matter
6 10064, Jason Taylor versus Joanne Ledoux.
7 THE COURT: All right, do you want to introduce
8 yourself for the record?
9 MR. TAYLOR: My name is Jason Taylor. I’m the
10 plaintiff.
11 THE COURT: All right, good to see you.
12 MR. RYDER: Good morning, Your Honor, David Ryder on
13 behalf of the Ledoux’s and Joanne Ledoux is beside me to my
14 left.
15 THE COURT: Good morning, good morning to you.
16 MS. LEDOUX: Good morning.
17 THE COURT: All right, so, we’re here for a denial of
18 appeal. This matter was originally tried in the District
19 Court. The plaintiff has appealed that ruling and it appears
20 to be a request for damages in tort following, it appears to be
21 an automobile accident. So, Mr. Taylor, do you want to stand
22 and raise your right hand? The clerk will give you the oath.
23 (The plaintiff was sworn.)
24 THE COURT: Mr. Taylor, are you going to be calling
25 any witnesses today?

5
1 MR. TAYLOR: I expect to call one witness, Rebecca
2 Zeltinger, the driver.
3 THE COURT: Is she here?
4 MR. TAYLOR: Yes.
5 THE COURT: All right, are you going to call her as
6 your first witness?
7 MR. TAYLOR: Yes.
8 THE COURT: Okay, fine. All right and, ma’am, are
9 you the first witness? Why don’t you come on up if you would.
10 Come on up here to the witness stand and if you’d step up into
11 the box and raise your right hand, the clerk will give you the
12 oath.
13 REBECCA ZELTINGER
14 called as a witness on behalf of the plaintiff, having been
15 first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:
16 THE COURT: You can have a seat. I am just going to
17 ask you, that chair doesn’t move, but if you could do your best
18 to speak into that microphone. Keep your voice up.
19 THE WITNESS: Okay.
20 DIRECT EXAMINATION
21 BY MR. TAYLOR:
22 Q So, if I can begin, in the first part of this what I
23 want to do is –-
24 THE COURT: Well, ma’am, why don’t you state your
25 name for the record?

6
1 THE WITNESS: Rebecca Zeltinger.
2 THE COURT: You are going to have to spell your last
3 name for me.
4 THE WITNESS: Z, as in Zebra, E-L-T, as in Tom, I-N-
5 G-E-R.
6 THE COURT: I-N-G-E-R, Zeltinger.
7 THE WITNESS: Yes.
8 THE COURT: All right. I’m sorry, so, Mr. Taylor, go
9 ahead.
10 BY MR. TAYLOR:
11 Q So, as I was saying, the first thing I’d like to do
12 is establish that the defendant committed negligence by
13 crashing her car into the stationary BMW that Rebecca Zeltinger
14 was driving and which I own.
15 THE COURT: Okay.
16 MR. TAYLOR: And if I am able to succeed in showing
17 that negligence then the next thing I will do is I will be
18 going into the value of the BMW before it was hit and stuff
19 like that.
20 THE COURT: All right.
21 BY MR. TAYLOR:
22 Q So, the accident, first of all, I am the owner of a
23 2000 BMW 5208i. It has a lot of unusual qualities about it,
24 but the main thing that’s relevant right now is that on June
25 15th there was an accident and Rebecca Zeltinger was driving

7
1 the car and since she’s already at the witness stand, I guess
2 she can go and ask –- can you describe, Ms. Zeltinger, why
3 there’s damage to the BMW and how it occurred?
4 A Yes, on the 15th of June, 2018, I was on my way home
5 from work, so, between 5 and 6ish, I don’t remember the exact
6 time and was at a stoplight going south on Rockville Pike. And
7 we have been at the stoplight for a while, or I, I was alone in
8 the car, but there were many cars on Rockville Pike for a spell
9 and I saw in the near distance a young deer running down the
10 median towards me, facing me. The light was still red.
11 I was beginning to get a little, just being very
12 aware of what was about to maybe happen and watching the deer
13 closely and everything else, the light turned green. By this
14 point, the deer was basically right beside my car. I was in
15 the middle lane it was still in the median. And so, I, the
16 light turned green. I was, I think, one or two cars back from
17 the intersection.
18 I did not step on the gas or begin movement because I
19 was waiting for to see what the deer would do and right in
20 front of my car it made a direct turn, right angle turn and was
21 just inches away from my car. It had cleared almost all of my
22 car and then I was hit from behind while stationary and my car
23 then clipped the last little hoof of the last leg of the deer
24 as it continued to run safely past me and that’s when I
25 sustained or the car sustained rear end damage.

8
2 MR. TAYLOR: Your Honor, I’d like to enter into
3 evidence Exhibit 3 at this time, even though the witness is
4 still in the middle of her testimony if that’s okay. I’ve
5 already given the defendant a copy of this exhibit. Can I give
6 it to you as well?
7 THE COURT: If you have it marked by the clerk, sure
8 and bring it up. Has that been previously marked? Is that why
9 it’s under 3.
10 THE CLERK: No, Your Honor, it’s going to be marked
11 as 1.
12 THE COURT: Yes, thank you.
13 MR. TAYLOR: Maybe I don’t know how to count. I have
14 a Ph.D. in physics, but -–
15 THE COURT: All right, so, that’s Plaintiff’s No. 1
16 and I will take a look at it. So, this a letter dated July
17 19th, 2018 from USAA entitled, Total Loss Settlement and you’re
18 offering this through this witness?
19 BY MR. TAYLOR:
20 Q Well, my point in bringing this exhibit is just to
21 give corroborating evidence that there was an accident and then
22 USAA submitted this to us and stuff. Ms. Zeltinger, what
23 happened after this. You described the initial part of the
24 accident, but what happened, did you get out of your car or
25 anything?
9
1 A So, the car was hit. We were in the middle of
2 Rockville Pike in rush hour traffic, so, I proceeded to, I
3 think it’s a Chevrolet dealership that was just beyond the
4 intersection. The defendant followed with her colleague and we
5 got out of the car, exchanged information and I took pictures.
6 I don’t recall if they took pictures. And then I proceeded to
7 round the corner to the shopping center and then called my
8 insurance and USAA and made claims to both.
9 Q Well how did you even know about USAA?
10 A So, the defendant provided me an insurance card of, I
11 presume, the owner of a car. It turned out not to be the
12 insurance for the vehicle that was being driven and it was
13 expired insurance, but it turned out that that number was still
14 an active number and had, anyway, so, the USAA continued to
15 talk to me.
16 Q So, you had a conversation with the driver of the car
17 that hit you.
18 A Yes.
19 Q Did you, at any point in time, ask her why on earth
20 she hit you?
21 A No.
22 Q Was it, did she volunteer this information or was she
23 reluctant to give you the information about her insurance
24 company?
25 A Very open in providing it.

10
1 Q Okay, this Exhibit 3 here, Total Loss –-
2 THE COURT: It’s Plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 1.
3 MR. TAYLOR: I’m sorry, Plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 1.
4 THE COURT: Okay, you can take a look at it.
5 BY MR. TAYLOR:
6 Q Why were you given that letter, do you think?
7 MR. RYDER: Objection.
8 THE COURT: Sustained.
9 MR. TAYLOR: Your Honor, I don’t understand –-
10 THE COURT: You can’t ask someone to speculate about
11 why something happened. You say why were you given the letter,
12 do you think and that calls for speculation. If you want her
13 to tell the Court how she got the letter then just ask her.
14 BY MR. TAYLOR:
15 Q Ms. Zeltinger, how did you get this letter?
16 A So, if I can –-
17 THE COURT: Let me ask you something are the two of
18 you related in some way?
19 THE WITNESS: We’re significant life partners.
20 THE COURT: Okay, so, you’re partners and that’s why
21 you were driving his car.
22 THE WITNESS: Indeed.
23 THE COURT: Got it. I didn’t know that.
24 MR. TAYLOR: I had, I am the owner -–
25 THE COURT: I know you said that, but I was wondering

11
1 why this person, who I had no idea who she is and you didn’t
2 introduce her or have her say who she was, I didn’t know why
3 she was driving your car. That’s all I was asking. Thank you.
4 MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, I’m just better with cars,
5 that’s all, so.
6 THE COURT: Well, you’re here today, sir and it’s
7 your case, so, why don’t you ask your next question.
8 MR. TAYLOR: Well, I think, she’s still in the middle
9 of answering the question.
10 THE WITNESS: Well, I was listening, but can I
11 continue answering what I did after the accident?
12 MR. TAYLOR: Yeah, absolutely.
13 THE COURT: I don’t know what question is actually
14 pending, but -–
15 BY MR. TAYLOR:
16 Q Okay, what happened after the accident, you started
17 having this conversation. My question to you was, how did you
18 get the information about USAA and you said that she was
19 willingly giving that information to you. Is there anything
20 else you wanted to continue to discuss about that?
21 A Sure, so, immediately after the accident, when I made
22 the claim to my insurance company after I relayed what had
23 happened, they said that it was highly likely it was going to
24 be deemed -–

12
1 THE WITNESS: -- that the other party was -–
2 THE COURT: Sustained, you can’t tell me what
3 somebody else said. That’s hearsay.
4 THE WITNESS: Even though it –
5 THE COURT: Yes, even though, yes, it’s hearsay.
6 THE WITNESS: -- it’s the exact same conversation I
7 had, thank you.
8 THE COURT: Yes, you can’t tell me what someone who
9 is not in the Courtroom said to you. That’s hearsay.
10 BY MR. TAYLOR:
11 Q Did you take any notes regarding the conversations
12 you had with USAA?
13 A Yes.
14 Q And what did those notes say?
16 THE COURT: Sustained. It’s hearsay.
17 BY MR. TAYLOR:
18 Q All right, there was a question, the question was why
19 are you in receipt of this letter?
20 A Because the other party was found at fault for the
21 accident.
23 THE COURT: So, did the other party’s insurance
24 company send you that letter?
25 THE WITNESS: Yes.

13
2 BY MR. TAYLOR:
3 Q Okay, this letter says, your total loss payments have
4 been calculated based on your decision to transfer your vehicle
5 ownership and is now ready. It goes on and it discusses the
6 amount of the offer and it goes into details of why. Your
7 Honor, I would like to submit that. The reason this letter was
8 given was because -–
10 THE COURT: You can’t tell me that, sir. You just
11 have to offer it into evidence. It doesn’t matter why it was
12 sent. It was clearly sent to Ms. Zeltinger and dated July
13 19th, 2018. The accident was on 6/15, so, about a month later
14 it was sent to her by the insurance company who represented the
15 driver that hit the rear of your car, correct?
16 THE WITNESS: Yes, well, the owner of the vehicle,
17 opposing, yes, not the driver.
18 THE COURT: Right.
19 BY MR. TAYLOR:
20 Q Ms. Zeltinger -–
21 THE COURT: So, sir, are you offering Plaintiff’s
22 Exhibit No. 1 into evidence?
23 MR. TAYLOR: Yeah, I thought I already did that.
24 THE COURT: No, you didn’t. So, do you have any
25 objection?
14
1 MR. RYDER: Since it’s small claims, I will not
2 object.
3 THE COURT: Okay, it’s received.
4 (The item marked for
5 identification as Plaintiff’s
6 Exhibit No. 1 was received in
7 evidence.)
8 BY MR. TAYLOR:
9 Q Okay, Ms. Zeltinger, would you, in your opinion,
10 based on the accident, would you characterize the driver who
11 hit your car as a negligent activity?
13 THE COURT: Sustained.
14 BY MR. TAYLOR:
15 Q Well, Your Honor, I think that the fact that this
16 accident occurred and, hold on, we’re not done. So, you were
17 stopped, your car was stopped and the back of it got hit,
18 basically, is that correct, Ms. Zeltinger?
19 A Yes.
20 Q All right and you received a phone call from USAA and
21 what happened? What was told to you in that phone call?
23 THE COURT: Sustained. It’s hearsay.
24 BY MR. TAYLOR:
25 Q Okay, so, because the back of your car got hit, would
15
1 you believe that, do you think that the reason that an accident
2 occurred was unavoidable or do you think that it was negligent
3 activity?
5 THE COURT: Sustained, that’s not for her to tell me,
6 sir. She can just tell me the facts of what happened and she’s
7 done that very clearly. She was stopped because of a deer and
8 she said in the middle of Rockville Pike at this point and she
9 said I was one or two cars from the intersection. I didn’t
10 move my car, the deer turned at right angle into the street,
11 directly in front of her car. She was hit from behind while
12 stationary and her car, as a result of being hit from behind,
13 hit the last hoof of the deer as it crossed the street and her
14 car sustained rear end damage.
15 MR. TAYLOR: That’s correct. Your Honor, in these
16 kind of -–
17 THE COURT: It’s not for the witness, sir, to tell
18 me, oh, yes, Your Honor, this was negligence.
19 MR. TAYLOR: Okay.
20 THE COURT: Negligence is a legal term -–
21 MR. TAYLOR: All right.
22 THE COURT: -- for the trier of fact to decide and
23 that’s me.
24 MR. TAYLOR: Okay, got it. Your Honor, I have no
25 more further questions for this witness.

16
1 THE COURT: All right, cross?
2 MR. RYDER: Thank you, Your Honor.
3 CROSS-EXAMINATION
4 BY MR. RYDER:
5 Q The vehicle that you were operating, the BMW, was
6 that a vehicle you normally operate?
7 A Yes.
8 Q Did you operate it on a daily basis?
9 A Practically.
10 Q Okay, has the vehicle been repaired since this
11 accident?
12 A Mostly, yes.
13 Q Okay, when was it repaired?
14 A I don’t know the particulars of that -–
15 MR. TAYLOR: Objection, Your Honor.
16 THE WITNESS: -- Jason’s (unintelligible).
17 THE COURT: Basis?
18 MR. TAYLOR: The law, as I understand it, and you
19 would probably know better than I, requires that the defendant,
20 assuming there is a finding of negligence, a fact, well, the
21 law says that she must restore, effectively, pay for any
22 repairs such that the vehicle is to its original condition or
23 replace it with another vehicle as such that I am just as good
24 off as I was before the accident.
25 The details of the repair or what, maybe, I sold the

17
1 car for a million dollars yesterday are irrelevant because
2 everything matters about what the value of the car was the day
3 of the accident in terms of the liability for her obligation to
4 restore. That’s assuming there’s a finding of negligence. The
5 defendant’s questions about how the repairs were done after
6 that aren’t too relevant. They’re interesting, I mean, I’d be
7 more than happy to entertain them, but I don’t find them
8 relevant –-
9 THE COURT: Objection is overruled. You may answer
10 the question if you remember what it was. I think it was, has
11 your car been repaired since the accident?
12 THE WITNESS: And I would say in part, I suppose, but
13 I don’t know the details of that. That’s Jason’s purview.
14 BY MR. RYDER:
15 Q Okay, do you know where it was repaired?
16 A No.
17 Q All right, do you know how long it took to repair?
18 A No, I, so, I do drive it every day, but that’s kind
19 of areas of specialty and I don’t involve myself in car
20 repairs.
21 Q Okay, do you know what is left unrepaired on the car?
22 A I don’t exactly, although I know at least some
23 aesthetic things so that the model number is still crooked I
24 guess there’s still the aesthetic scratches on the rear bumper,
25 but I don’t have the full inventory of things not being done.
18
1 Q Okay, you gave a recorded statement, well, strike
2 that. You said that the accident happened at an intersection,
3 is that right?
4 A Yes, a couple of cars –
5 Q Okay, which intersection was it, Route 355 -–
6 A 355 and I cross 7 –- lost the name, it’s -–
7 Q Is it Wooten Parkway?
8 A Thank you, I was missing, yes.
9 Q Okay and you were in the middle of three lanes?
10 A Yes.
11 Q And you were stopped for the light?
12 A For the light.
13 Q And how many cars were ahead of you in the middle
14 lane up to the light?
15 A I think two-ish.
16 Q Okay, you gave a recorded statement to my client’s
17 insurance company following the accident, correct?
18 A Yes.
19 Q And you were asked on page 4 –-
20 A I think I was uncertain whether I was in the middle
21 or the other, if it was two or three lanes, if I recall.
22 THE COURT: Now wait until there is a question.
23 THE WITNESS: All right, sure.
24 BY MR. RYDER:
25 Q Okay, you were asked at the bottom of page 3, okay,

19
1 already, all right, so, we’ve gotten the location of the basic
2 scene of what happened, can you tell me what happened. On page
3 4 your answer was, sure, so, it’s rush hour and it was kind of
4 bumper to bumper, basically at a standstill. There was a light
5 maybe a block and a half in front of us and one maybe a half a
6 block behind us. Is that accurate?
7 A I don’t think it’s accurate, more accurate than two
8 cars, my apologies.
9 Q Okay, so, the next closest light ahead of you was a
10 block and a half and you had just passed through an
11 intersection about a half a block behind you, so, you’re in
12 between intersections, is that a fair statement?
13 A Definitely in between intersections, but I don’t
14 know, I don’t recall exact position.
15 Q So, you would agree with me that you gave this
16 statement –-
17 A Within an hour.
18 Q -- all right, so, you would agree with me that your
19 memory of the location and what happened would have been
20 fresher back then.
21 A Fresher than I remember even then because I was so
22 jumpy, that I couldn’t remember if it was a two or three lane
23 at the moment and I think I made reference, but yes, I would
24 presume that’s more fresh than, you know, a year and a half
25 later.
20
1 Q Okay, did you see my client’s vehicle behind you at
2 any point before the accident happened?
3 A Yes.
4 Q Okay, when was the last time before the impact
5 happened that you saw it?
6 A I’d say within a minute or 30 seconds, I would
7 suspect. I mean, we were, it was bumper traffic stopped for
8 lights.
9 Q Okay, so, you saw her about 30 seconds to a minute
10 before and then not again until after the impact occurred, is
11 that a fair statement?
12 A It’s probably fewer than 30 seconds, so, I knew she
13 was right behind me, but I was focused on the deer and the
14 light and the other cars around, kind of just trying to figure
15 out what all might happen in the next minute or two.
16 Q Okay and the deer came from your left, correct?
17 A Yes.
18 Q It came across Rockville Pike in between the
19 intersection, is that right?
20 A Down, it was coming north on Rockville Pike in the
21 median and then right at my car immediate turn, inches in front
22 of my car, just proceeded to jaunt in front of my car.
23 Q All right and this, the location of the accident was
24 heading south towards D.C. on 355 -–
25 A Yes.
21
1 Q -- just past the intersection with Wooten Parkway.
2 A Yes, near Wooten Parkway, I need to look at a map to
3 figure out if it was before or after.
4 Q All right, in that area there was a concrete median
5 that separated northbound and southbound, correct?
6 A Yes, yeah, like grassy median.
7 Q Okay, that’s all the questions I have, Your Honor.
8 THE COURT: Redirect?
9 MR. TAYLOR: At the end of the day, there’s damage at
10 the back of the car, this was a year and a half ago, I mean,
11 I’m not exactly sure what the relevance is of his questions.
12 THE COURT: Okay, are you asking a question, sir, in
13 redirect or are you making a statement because the purpose of
14 redirect would be for you to be allowed to ask questions of the
15 witness in light of the cross examination questions that were
16 asked of her.
17 MR. TAYLOR: Thank you for helping me out there, Your
18 Honor.
19 THE COURT: So, do you have any questions you’d like
20 to ask her?
21 MR. TAYLOR: No.
22 THE COURT: All right, so, you may step down. Thank
23 you very much.
24 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
25 (Witness excused.)
22
1 THE COURT: All right, Mr. Taylor, do you have other
2 witnesses that you would like to call or would you like to
3 testify yourself?
4 MR. TAYLOR: Right now what I would like to do is
5 have another -- well, let me ask you a question. So, are we
6 going to separate this into two stages or do you want me to do
7 the whole thing, including the damages right now and all that?
8 THE COURT: It’s your, you are here, it’s your case.
9 MR. TAYLOR: Okay, so.
10 JASON TAYLOR
11 the plaintiff, having been first duly sworn, was examined and
12 testified as follows:
14 BY THE COURT:
15 Q So, do you want to testify, sir?
16 A Yeah, no, what I would like to do is argue some
17 points. Based on the witness’s testimony, I think it’s very
18 clear that there was, that the defendant caused an accident and
19 she should have stopped sooner and she didn’t and I think she
20 is guilty of negligence.
21 Her obligation is to restore that vehicle to its
22 original condition. It so happens -–
23 Q So, is the point of this trial that you think the
24 insurance company didn’t give you enough money?
25 A Yes.
23
1 Q Okay, so, that’s the whole point -–
2 A They didn’t give any money, but that’s besides the
3 point.
4 Q They didn’t give any money at all.
5 A No, they made an offer.
6 Q And they fixed your car?
7 A No, we, I had driven the car to the place they made
8 us take the car to like as they asked. I didn’t prep it or
9 anything, I just drove it in.
10 Q Uh-huh.
11 A And they said the value is, well, actually, let’s go
12 ahead and look at Exhibit 1.
13 Q Well, you need to, okay, so, I will look at 1, that’s
14 in. Go ahead.
15 A No, go ahead and give your advice.
16 Q No, go ahead. No, I am not giving you advice. I am
17 not trying the case for you, sir.
18 A Okay, so, on page 2 of Exhibit 1, they gave a summary
19 of, hold on, I am just trying to think if I am skipping
20 anything regarding the accident. Yeah, actually, can we go
21 back a little bit. I have to explain some things. This is,
22 the back of the BMW there are pictures all over the place and
23 have submitted into evidence on my end, but the damage is on
24 the back of the BMW.
25 Q All right, I don’t have those in front of me, sir,

24
1 so, if you want them into evidence, you have to introduce them.
2 A Okay, let’s go ahead and look at the complaint.
3 Complaint, page 3, has a picture of the front of our car.
4 Q Okay, so, are you offering them into evidence in this
5 trial because this is a brand new trial.
6 A Okay, I’d like to offer the entire complaint from
7 District Court which is 32 pages into evidence at this time,
8 Your Honor. And if you want a copy of it –
9 Q I do, yes, I do.
10 A You have a copy.
11 Q I have a copy in the file, but it needs to be a part
12 of this trial -–
13 A Okay, I amend it to be entered into evidence at this
14 time, Your Honor.
15 THE COURT: So, I guess there’s no docket entries.
16 Oh, docket entry, here we go, docket entry, I have 2. Is there
17 a Docket Entry 1, original record received? All right, so,
18 that’s Docket Entry 1. So, all right, do you have any
19 objection to it being admitted into evidence?
20 MR. RYDER: Court’s indulgence for just one second.
21 THE COURT: I am not really sure what it is, but -–
22 MR. RYDER: Your Honor, I do to the extent, at least
23 the copy that I have, has partial pages and things like that,
24 so, I don’t know if it’s -–
25 THE COURT: I’m sorry, what’s your objection?

25
1 MR. RYDER: The copy that I have there are many
2 attachments, parts of which are partial pages or one page it
3 appears out of something larger and, you know, I don’t know if
4 they are complete documents.
5 MR. TAYLOR: Your Honor, I have a better printout.
6 BY THE COURT:
7 Q Why don’t we do it this way? If you have
8 photographs that you want to introduce into evidence, bring
9 them up now and we will label them as Plaintiff’s Exhibit 2
10 because I am not going to separate the complaint that is part
11 of this record, I am not going to try your case for you, sir.
12 So, if you want, if you have photographs that you want to
13 introduce, I am not going to select the photographs for you out
14 of this file. I don’t think that’s fair to the defendant. I’m
15 not going to try your case.
16 A Are you denying my desire to have the complaint
17 admitted as evidence?
18 Q No, the complaint is -–
19 A As an exhibit?
20 Q -- the complaint, no I’m not. No, I’m not.
21 A Okay.
22 Q I’m asking you to tell me what photographs you want
23 to introduce because there’s a whole lot of photographs.
24 There’s photographs of the defendant’s car in here. So, I am
25 asking you to show me the photographs you want me to see. I

26
1 see some picture of a BMW, hold on.
2 A I want all 32 pages admitted into evidence, all 32.
3 Q Well you heard, that’s part of the complaint –-
4 A Yeah.
5 Q -- but you want me to look at photographs right now.
6 A Yeah, just page 3 right now. What’s the problem with
7 that?
8 Q Page 3, there’s no page 3, sir. It’s a huge file of
9 attachments, so, I don’t see a page 3. That’s what I am trying
10 to tell you. Can you just come up from your chair for a second
11 and maybe show me the photographs you want me to see?
12 A Here’s a copy.
13 Q All right, I will take that, that’s good. I will
14 take.
15 A It’s a better printout. Here’s another copy, it’s a
16 better printout. It’s the same thing, they’re numbered at the
17 bottom.
18 THE COURT: That’s perfect, so, we’re going to label
19 this as Plaintiff’s No. 2, please, and then that will be
20 admitted.
21 (The document referred to was
22 marked as Plaintiff's Exhibit No.
23 2 and was received in evidence.)
24 THE WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honor. If you look at
25 page 3 of that, this shows a picture of the front of the, it

27
1 looks like a Toyota --
2 BY THE COURT:
3 Q Okay, sure.
4 A -- symbol.
5 Q Right, uh-huh.
6 A So, the logical reason that you’d have the front of
7 her car damage is because the front of her car hit the back of
8 the BMW –-
9 Q All right.
10 A -- and that’s, in fact, where if you look at the -–
11 well, you don’t have it, but the data has given me something
12 this morning and it just was what I was emailed which is a CCC-
13 1 market evaluation report, but basically, it has pictures of
14 the damage, too. The reason I mentioned the location of the
15 damage is because it corroborates the witness’s testimony and
16 there’s a front and rear end collision. The police were not
17 called, but I don’t know that we need to have that kind of
18 detail here.
19 To me, I’d like to point out that the only logical
20 explanation is that the defendant was at fault and hit the back
21 of my BMW and I think I’m ready to start to talk about the
22 amount of money that’s owed in my opinion.
23 Q Okay, go ahead.
24 A Okay, so, as I understand from based on who I talked
25 to, her obligation is to basically pay for the value of the car
28
1 before the accident or to repair it somehow. USAA was very
2 clear in our communications that after I brought it in and they
3 sent their person to take a bunch of pictures and stuff that,
4 unfortunately, the car was totaled. That’s what they said.
5 Q So, here’s what they said. Let’s try to be a little
6 more clear. Plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 1, vehicle’s actual cash,
7 page 2. Vehicle’s actual cash value according to the claim and
8 payment information from USAA which, I assume, is the insurance
9 of the defendant. Vehicle’s actual cash value, $2,404, sales
10 tax, $144.24, tag transfer fee, title fee, net total of the car
11 for payment, $2,658.24. Did USAA give you that amount of
12 money?
13 A They did, no.
14 Q What did they do? What did USAA do for you then?
15 A Nothing.
16 Q Did you refuse to take the $2,500?
17 A Well, what happened is, right after they gave the
18 estimate, I pointed out that this doesn’t take into account
19 three important things. First of all, it doesn’t take into
20 account the fact the BMW has a newer engine in it. Second of
21 all, it doesn’t account for the fact that it was recently
22 Maryland inspected and the third thing I pointed out in an
23 email that it doesn’t take into account that it recently passed
24 VEIP emissions, which requires the check engine light is off
25 and also that the catalytic converter is working and in a 15-

29
1 20-year-old car it’s sort of an important thing.
2 They didn’t respond to that and when I contacted them
3 and I asked them why, they didn’t answer any of those things.
4 They just stopped all communication, but they did call and say,
5 well -–
7 BY THE COURT:
8 Q What did you do in response to what they said in that
9 phone call. Don’t tell me what they said, but what did you do
10 when they did call and say something to you.
11 A When we, I didn’t pick up when they called. They
12 left a message and I called back.
13 Q Okay and then did you speak to them?
14 A I did.
15 Q And what did you say to them?
16 A I said, the amount of the offer is not -–
17 Q It’s not enough.
18 A -- is not enough.
19 Q Okay, and so, did you take the offer from them?
20 A No.
21 Q Did you say, I’m not taking it?
22 A No, we didn’t get to that point.
23 Q Okay, got it, all right. So, what happened next?
24 A Okay, so, in the meantime I did contact them again
25 and said, if you don’t make an offer or something that’s equal

30
1 to the value of the car, or reasonable, then I will go and take
2 this to Court and –-
3 Q All right, and so, you wrote on your Plaintiff’s
4 Exhibit 1, I don’t know whether you wrote it or not, but
5 somebody in a blue pen has written, correction, 8661 and then a
6 line underneath that looks to me as if someone has added 8661
7 into the 2658.24 and let’s see here, did you do that?
8 A Yeah, I did that this morning.
9 Q Okay, got it.
10 A So, let’s go and –-
11 Q Hang on, hang on, hang on. All right, got it, so,
12 that’s 11,319. So, where did you get this correction, $8661?
13 A As I pointed out before, the (unintelligible) report
14 which is right here by the insurance company.
15 Q Is that something that’s in exhibit?
16 A It is.
17 Q Is it in No. 2?
18 A Yeah, it is already.
19 Q Tell me what that is.
20 A David told me he’s going to enter it into evidence
21 anyway in his exhibit.
22 Q And so, when you are referring to David, you are
23 referring to -–
24 A The counsel, sorry about that.
25 Q -- defense counsel, so, why don’t we use his formal

31
1 name since we’re actually in a Courtroom and the record will
2 reflect it because I don’t know him as David, okay. So, just
3 show me, come up if you would, and show me what it is you want
4 me to see in this packet. What is it that you’re holding up?
5 A Well –-
6 Q I can’t see that far, sir, please just come up with
7 it, thank you. Let me just take a look at it. Is that in this
8 package, CCC-1, market valuation, so, is that in your
9 complaint?
10 A No.
11 Q Okay, so –-
12 A Part of it is, part of it is.
13 Q All right, let me find it.
14 A The relevant part is.
15 Q All right, let me find it.
16 A But I’d have to find it, too.
17 Q Okay, why don’t you find it, you go ahead.
18 A I’m sorry.
19 Q It’s all right.
20 A Page 29.
21 Q Okay thank you.
22 A That’s the relevant part.
23 Q All right, got it.
24 A Page 29 says what USAA said the value of the BMW is,
25 but it’s also in my, we don’t need me to use that because we

32
1 can just use Exhibit 1, my Exhibit 1.
2 Q All right.
3 A That’s the 2685 that is from them. It says USAA on
4 the top.
5 Q Right.
6 A Now, my objections to this being the amount that they
7 owe me is that, number one, it doesn’t take into account the
8 fact that there was $7,000 put into a new engine. So, the
9 receipt for that repair is in the complaint and you have to
10 reduce it because it was done years ago.
11 Q When was it done?
12 A Hold on, I will tell you the date. 2012. So,
13 because the accident was in 2018, there was a six year decay of
14 engine value. It turns out if you do an expediential to carry
15 which is reasonable, the true value of that addition to the car
16 is $4,910 and that’s shown on page 5 of the complaint or
17 Exhibit 2, I guess.
18 Q Yes.
19 A The next thing, so, there’s another thing about the
20 car. In the State of Maryland, you won’t normally see a car
21 for say by a dealer that is more than probably 15-years-old and
22 the reason for that is because Maryland has a very unusual,
23 very strict safety inspection standard and I applaud Maryland
24 for having such a rigorous testing standard. But what it means
25 is that when a car is sold, you would have to do a lot of

33
1 repairs to get it Maryland inspected and this car, that whole
2 process had been completed already, even despite its age.
3 And it had passed Maryland inspection and that’s
4 shown in the complaint, the Maryland inspection passing, let me
5 try to find the page if you bear with me a second.
6 Q It’s at page 5 of your complaint.
7 A Is it?
8 Q And then page 6, page 5 and 6.
9 A No, no, no.
10 Q It says, Maryland safety inspection passing valid –-
11 A Yeah, that’s, the actual certificate is in here, too.
12 Q All right, I believe it’s in here, but you come up,
13 you came up with these calculations. It’s often not worth
14 repairing such cars for this reason, Maryland inspected
15 vehicles from 2000 are extremely rare.
16 A It’s page 8, sorry for interrupting, Your Honor.
17 Q And then it says Appendix 2 confirms and then you
18 have some calculations here. The Vehicle Emission Inspection
19 Program inspection passing value, you come up with and the
20 summary, at the time of the accident, the diminished engine
21 replacement value was approximately $4,900.
22 At the time of the accident the non-diminished work
23 required to pass Maryland Safety Inspection was valued at
24 approximately 3,000. Again, this is based on your
25 calculations. So, at the time of the receive VEIP, Vehicle

34
1 Emissions Inspection Program passing was valued at
2 approximately $750. Combined value of these items is 8661 is
3 what you’ve added to your Exhibit No. 1.
4 A Right and if you go to page 17 of the complaint, what
5 is shown there is the number of cars and denominator here and
6 the press, so, what I did is I went on the Craigslist and I
7 searched for Maryland inspected cars. And I got a certain
8 number and I adjusted the price until I found the mid-point of
9 that number. And what that does is that shows the meeting
10 price for a Maryland inspected car versus a non-Maryland
11 inspected car and all this is shown on pages 17, 18 and 19.
12 Q All right.
13 A And what the difference was $3,000. I did the same
14 thing for VEIP and I got 750. So, we have the engine, 4,900
15 about 5,000 and 3,000 for the Maryland inspection, 750 for the
16 VEIP, it adds up to being a correction of 8,661, a total of
17 11,319 and based on the evidence that the defendant caused the
18 accident, that is the amount that I am requesting today. I
19 rest my case.
20 Q All right, thank you very much. So, just for the
21 record, I don’t know if I said this or not, is admitted. 1 is
22 already in. All right –-
23 A Your Honor, am I able to admit, give you any more
24 exhibits, am I done?
25 Q Sure, do you want to offer them and we’ll see if

35
1 there’s any objection?
2 A What I want to know is, can I to be efficient, can I
3 only give it to you if it’s needed if he’s –
4 Q Well, I’m not trying your case for you again, so, if
5 you think it’s needed, you should probably make the effort to
6 offer it.
7 A Okay, all right, well, I will go ahead and offer it.
8 Q Based on what you’ve said, I get what you’re saying.
9 I guess I understand your calculations, but please offer
10 anything you’d like.
11 A Okay, there’s a third exhibit I’d like to give you -–
12 Q All right.
13 A -- so, it says Exhibit 2, but that’s what -–
14 THE COURT: We’ll change to Exhibit 3, Plaintiff’s
15 No. 3. Have you seen a copy of this?
16 MR. RYDER: I have a copy, Your Honor.
17 BY THE COURT:
18 Q Oh, you have it, thank you.
19 A The point I want to make is -–
20 Q Hang on, let me see it first. I haven’t seen it.
21 Okay, thank you.
22 A So, it says comparable one, this is, to get to the
23 2,000 some dollar number, when, because you’re not going to see
24 them in Maryland anyway for the most part, the CCCA’s valuation
25 company used comparables in Virginia. Now, Virginia’s

36
1 inspection is sort of a joke. They check for brakes and stuff
2 like that, but they don’t look at any rubber or any bumper
3 bushings that go bad –-
4 Q So, this doesn’t have a price on it, though, sir.
5 A No.
6 Q You’re showing me that this is from Virginia.
7 A Well, I am showing you that when they estimated the
8 value of the car, they didn’t take into account that it’s got,
9 this car, the BMW, was Maryland inspected. The comparable is
10 sold in Virginia.
11 Q I see what you’re saying.
12 A It’s an apples to oranges situation.
13 Q All right.
14 A I mean, he’s going to, I guess you can take my word
15 for it that they didn’t make any effort and they didn’t make
16 any effort to valuate the other aspects of the vehicle,
17 including the newer engine. I mean, that’s a really important
18 thing to me and it’s part of the reason I bought it. I mean,
19 but, they said, well, it doesn’t matter. So, now, I rest my
20 case.
21 THE COURT: All right, so, do you have any objection
22 to Plaintiff’s No. 3, counsel?
23 MR. RYDER: No, Your Honor.
24 THE COURT: Okay, Plaintiff’s 3 is admitted.

37
1 identification as Plaintiff’s
3 evidence.)
4 THE COURT: All right, so, the plaintiff has rested.
5 MR. RYDER: May I ask the plaintiff a few questions?
6 THE COURT: I’m sorry?
7 MR. RYDER: May I ask the plaintiff a few questions?
8 THE COURT: Oh, yes, yes, of course.
10 THE COURT: So, let me just explain. Mr. Taylor, I
11 think what you kind of did there at the end, sort of a summary,
12 sort of a closing argument in a way, but you also offered
13 exhibits and sort of testified about how you came up with your
14 calculations. And so, I am going to allow counsel an
15 opportunity to ask you some questions about what you just
16 testified to, all right?
17 THE WITNESS: Sure.
18 THE COURT: Go ahead, counsel.
19 CROSS-EXAMINATION
20 BY MR. RYDER:
21 Q Thank you, Your Honor. The engine was replaced in
22 the vehicle late July 2012?
23 A That’s probably right. I can look at the receipt if
24 you want. Do you want me to look at the receipt?
25 Q Sure.
38
1 A Okay.
2 Q And I’m getting this information from page 25 of 32
3 of the attachments to your complaint.
4 THE COURT: Yes.
5 THE WITNESS: The receipt is on page 6, so do I have
6 25. Okay, 25. I’m on page 25 now.
7 BY MR. RYDER:
8 Q It says there that the engine was replaced in late
9 July 2012, at 100,874 miles, is that correct?
10 A Yes.
11 Q And the vehicle, at the time of the accident had
12 158,602 miles on it, correct?
13 A Yes.
14 Q Okay, the vehicle has, at least, been partially
15 repaired now?
16 A I would say, just roughly, maybe a fourth of it has
17 been repaired.
18 Q Okay, where was it repaired?
19 A To one thing, after the accident, the right window
20 wasn’t working, so, Becky was driving it around with tape on it
21 because we didn’t know the situation with this insurance.
22 Q Okay, I’m just interested in knowing where the
23 vehicle was repaired.
24 A So, I decided to quickly repair that and I paid it
25 out of pocket.
39
1 THE COURT: Where, I think he’s asking, where was it
2 repaired?
3 THE WITNESS: The right rear window was repaired.
4 THE COURT: So, are you asking what physical body
5 shop did the work?
6 MR. RYDER: Yes, Your Honor.
7 THE COURT: Yes, I think that’s what he’s asking,
8 where was it repaired? What body shop?
9 THE WITNESS: Oh, okay, oh, I did all the work
10 myself, I think.
11 BY MR. RYDER:
12 Q Okay, so, you fixed the right window. What else did
13 you do?
14 A After the accident, the car was leaking and I did a
15 repair to the intake manifold.
16 Q Okay, what else did you repair?
17 A The interior had cracks on it, but this was just due
18 to the car’s age.
19 Q I’m interested in knowing about repairs to damage you
20 claim are related to this accident.
21 A Oh, okay, all right. The rear bumper was repainted.
22 THE COURT: The rear bumper?
23 THE WITNESS: The rear bumper was repainted.
24 BY MR. RYDER:
25 Q Who did that?

40
1 A I did that. The hood was, the rear trunk was
2 slightly fixed.
3 THE COURT: The rear trunk what?
4 THE WITNESS: The rear trunk was fixed slightly. The
5 whole repair would be pretty expensive, but I tried to fix it a
6 little bit.
7 THE COURT: And you did it yourself.
8 THE WITNESS: Yeah.
10 THE WITNESS: And then the hood, it’s possible when
11 the car was hit, the muffler pushed the engine into the hood.
12 I replaced the hood.
13 BY MR. RYDER:
14 Q Okay, any other repairs that you did to the vehicle
15 for damages you claim are accident related?
16 A The deer caused some damage in the front and I
17 repaired that, I think.
18 Q Okay, how much did it cost to perform the repairs
19 that you just told us about?
20 A Probably $2,000 including my time, explain my time, I
21 would guess, $200.
22 Q All right and how are you valuing your time?
23 A I have a Ph.D. in physics. I, that’s what I would be
24 allotted if somebody asked me to do consulting work, $60 an
25 hour.
41
1 Q Okay, most auto mechanics don’t have Ph.D.’s, right?
2 A They would charge more. 60 is low for a mechanic.
3 Q Okay, so –-
4 A They charge triple or double, triple four times that
5 at a dealer, double that at the mechanic, but what’s
6 interesting is that USAA’s labor rates were different than the
7 labor rates that they said that they, there’s a discrepancy on
8 the labor rates, let’s just put it that way.
9 Q Okay, so, you used $60 an hour as your labor rate?
10 A That’s my labor rate.
11 Q Okay and how many hours did you put into the repair?
12 A Probably 30 or something.
13 Q All right, what is left to be repaired on the
14 vehicle?
15 A Okay, after the accident, the car has been making a
16 loud noise whenever you drive it. There’s something wrong with
17 the, something about the manifold or the gasket to the exhaust
18 system in the engine or maybe the exhaust system was broken, I
19 am not exactly sure, but it’s making a lot of noise. That’s
20 one thing.
21 Q Okay when did that start after the accident?
22 A Immediately.
23 Q All right and the vehicle is still being driven on a
24 daily basis?
25 A No, it’s not being driven. I don’t agree with

42
1 Rebecca’s testimony completely as a very minor point, it was
2 being driven.
3 Q Okay, what other repairs need to be made?
4 A That car is not, it doesn’t look presentable, so, I
5 got her a different car and that’s what she’s been driving.
6 Q Okay, what other repairs need to be made to the BMW?
7 A The rear, Your Honor –-
8 THE COURT: No, sir, you can’t speak to me. You’re
9 being asked a question. I think he asked what other repairs,
10 is that what your question was, what other repairs?
11 THE WITNESS: Okay, I’ll do as I am told.
12 THE COURT: Sir, it’s a trial, so, there are rules
13 and I expect counsel to follow the rules and you’re here as you
14 elected to be self-represented and not hire an attorney, so, I
15 expect you to follow the rules, too.
16 THE WITNESS: Okay, I do object, but I can do that
17 later, right?
18 THE COURT: No, you can object, do you object to the
19 question, what other repairs are left?
20 THE WITNESS: Yeah, this gets back to something I
21 think you already adjudicated before, but maybe you can remind
22 me exactly the motivation why because her, the allegation is to
23 restore the car to its original condition.
24 THE COURT: Okay, so, sir, here’s the thing. I have
25 to know what repairs, that is a legitimate question that is

43
1 relevant to your damages. So, you may think that the car, in
2 your words, doesn’t look presentable, which I’m not really sure
3 what that means, but -–
4 THE WITNESS: It’s got a dent, a visible dent you can
5 see on the back.
6 THE COURT: Okay, so, that’s why you’re being asked
7 to tell us what repairs are left to be made.
8 THE WITNESS: The basis of my objection isn’t that,
9 though.
10 THE COURT: Your objection is overruled. Please
11 answer the question. What repairs need to be, remain and need
12 to be addressed?
13 THE WITNESS: Okay, where were we when I, I mentioned
14 the exhaust. Okay, the subframe on the bottom, all of the, all
15 these estimates in here, there’s, I mean, right here there’s a
16 big estimate. Their estimate included all of those, no, this
17 isn’t it. It’s a different PDF file. I may have printed it
18 out somewhere.
19 MR. RYDER: Your Honor, I will withdraw my question.
20 I have no further questions.
21 THE COURT: All right, so, I have some questions and
22 I am going to ask before you present any evidence that you’d
23 like to present.
25 THE COURT: I am going to ask Ms. Zeltinger to come

44
1 back to the stand if you will.
2 REBECCA ZELTINGER
3 called as a witness on behalf of the Court, having been first
4 duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:
6 BY THE COURT:
7 Q All right, so, Ms. Zeltinger, how fast was your car
8 traveling when you were impacted from behind?
9 A I went from a stationary, you’re asking the speed
10 once I was hit?
11 Q Yes.
12 A I don’t know –-
13 THE COURT: Sir, sir, no, sir stop.
15 THE COURT: Okay, I am asking a question and you can
16 shake your head at the witness all you want, I am asking the
17 question.
18 MR. TAYLOR: All right, sorry.
19 THE COURT: And I am going to ask you to have some
20 decorum in this courtroom. Okay, that’s just very improper for
21 you to shake your head at a witness while I am asking a
22 question, so, please stop.
23 MR. TAYLOR: I apologize.
24 BY THE COURT:
25 Q Yes, ma’am, so, I am asking you, at what speed were

45
1 you traveling when you were hit from behind?
2 A So, I was stationary when I was hit. I don’t know
3 the speed –-
4 Q All right, okay, so you were stationary.
5 A Yes.
6 Q Okay, so, your car was stopped when you were hit from
7 behind.
8 A Yes.
9 Q Okay and how, you stopped because the deer was in
10 front of you.
11 A I was stopped because we were at a stop light.
12 Q Okay, so you didn’t stop -–
13 A And I hadn’t yet put the gas on because I saw the
14 deer coming.
15 Q Got it, got it, okay. So, are you able to –- how
16 long have you been driving a car?
17 A I don’t know, 30 some years, over 36 years.
18 Q Okay, all right. Are you able to estimate how fast
19 the car behind you that hit you was traveling?
20 A I don’t know if I could give a speed. Someone
21 engaged the gas quite swiftly, so, I don’t know if that’s 10,
22 20 miles per hour. I don’t know what happens when you --
23 Q Well, 10 to 20 miles an hour is the speed limit, half
24 the speed limit of the Pike. You said you were in bumper to
25 bumper traffic.
46
1 A Yes.
2 Q So, are you saying that the car behind you was
3 traveling along the roadway and -–
4 A No, so, as the gas was punched and so I hit the
5 mirror.
6 Q From a stopped position?
7 A Yes.
8 Q Okay, so, would you agree with me, well, first of
9 all, how long did it take after the gas was punched that you
10 were hit? How long between that period of time?
11 A Seconds.
12 Q Okay, so, you agree with me the car could not have
13 been traveling 40 miles per hour in a matter of seconds.
14 A Yes, yes.
15 Q Okay, so, it was coming from a stopped position and
16 trying to move forward in traffic and then hit you.
17 A Yes.
18 Q So, you’re not able to give me an estimate of how
19 fast it was traveling.
20 A I don’t want, I just –-
21 Q Well it was coming from a stopped position.
22 A Yes.
23 Q Okay and was there a car in front of you?
24 A Yes.
25 Q And did you hit that car?

47
1 A No, fortunately.
2 Q Okay, so, the front of your car hit nothing other
3 than the deer.
4 A Just slightly the last bit of the hoof, fortunately,
5 yes.
6 THE COURT: Got it, all right. Do you have any
7 questions in light of those questions, Mr. Taylor?
8 MR. TAYLOR: No.
9 THE COURT: Do you have any questions?
11 THE COURT: All right, you may step down. Thank you,
12 Ms. Zeltinger. I appreciate it.
14 JASON TAYLOR
15 the plaintiff, having been previously duly sworn, was examined
16 and testified as follows:
17 REDIRECT EXAMINATION
18 BY THE COURT:
19 Q All right, so, back to Mr. Taylor. Mr. Taylor, do
20 you have anything, any statements in light of the questions
21 that you were asked by counsel?
22 A Yes, the jurisdiction of this particular proceedings
23 was originally from the District Court, small claims. The, one
24 of the things the defendant agreed upon in that proceeding by
25 not objecting to the jurisdiction is had the compensation would

48
1 be financial.
2 So, I mean, if the questions are relating to I can,
3 them doing repairs, then, the time would have been for them to
4 have done that when I was asking them why they have to total
5 the car rental, that other stuff over the past year and a half,
6 prior to the trial, which the complaint was filed in April of
7 this year.
8 So, for that reason, I don’t think all the questions
9 are relevant to what was done after that. I did want to point
10 out that the repairs I did have are independent of the repairs
11 of the damage for the estimates. For instance, their estimate,
12 they didn’t include the damages for the window because they
13 said, well, that couldn’t have been caused by the accident even
14 though it was. And the damages to the hood, they said that was
15 caused by the deer or something, no, they actually said she hit
16 the deer on her own and it was her fault, the damage was there.
17 So, these, they’re separate is my point. And also I am
18 pointing out –-
19 Q But, sir, you’re here today, they’re not separate.
20 You’re here today asking this Court to grant you, I guess,
21 you’re asking for $11,319 and you were asked very, I think,
22 proper and relevant questions on cross examination, what
23 repairs did you make.
24 A Well –-
25 Q And so, the repairs that you make were to the intake
49
1 manifold, the right window, the rear bumper was repainted, the
2 trunk was slightly fixed. You replaced the hood on the
3 vehicle, I mean, that’s very relevant to me which is why I
4 asked Ms. Zeltinger the questions that I asked her.
5 A Your Honor –-
6 Q And so, I guess, I really don’t understand your
7 objection.
8 A Okay, let me explain it in more detail if you will
9 allow me to. USAA came to us and said after they looked at the
10 car, not literally come to us, they communicated to us that we
11 had determined based on the 75 percent estimate, that your car
12 is totaled. And I tried to argue with them otherwise, but they
13 said, no, this is what it is.
14 All the things we did after that were and we tried to
15 challenge that and everything and they were very clear on it,
16 this is what you’re getting, this is why and this is our
17 decision. We gave them ample opportunities in the six or,
18 almost, I waited almost eight months where I tried to convince
19 them maybe you should do this or that, maybe you shouldn’t, not
20 total the car, to change their mind, but they insisted, no,
21 this is what it is based on the total.
22 So, I am not arguing that, and a totaled car isn’t
23 going to be repaired, okay. USAA came to us and said, you’re
24 not going to repair your car. You’re getting this number and
25 this is why. All I’m doing is challenging the basis of the

50
1 numbers because –-
2 Q I know that. I understand that.
3 A Their valuation is wrong.
4 Q Okay.
5 A Now, if you, if defendant, at this point in time
6 says, no, we change our mind, your car is not totaled. We want
7 it to get repaired, so, we’re going to get into all these
8 repairs, that’s fine. I will ask for a continuation where I
9 can deal with that kind of a situation. This complaint was all
10 based on the fact that it’s totaled. If it’s not, and we’re
11 going to go a different road, that’s fine, we can do that.
12 Q I think, it’s your trial, sir. It’s your complaint.
13 So, I don’t understand what you’re saying, we’ll continue it
14 and go a different route. I’m not even really sure what you’re
15 saying.
16 A Okay, let me –-
17 Q You’re here today and you don’t need to try again.
18 You’re here today seeking $11,316 for your 2000 BMW, right.
19 A And that number is based all on the fact that the car
20 is totaled.
21 Q I get it. I get what that number is based on.
22 A And a totaled car isn’t repaired. It’s sold at an
23 auction.
24 Q So, let me ask you a question about something you
25 said. The car doesn’t look presentable. What does that mean,
51
1 exactly?
2 A There’s a little dent in the back.
3 Q Okay and doesn’t look presentable to whom?
4 A The kind of people that Rebecca Zeltinger deals with
5 at work were she to drive it and anywhere I would drive it. I
6 mean, if somebody’s going to look at a dented car, would you
7 want to drive a dented car, probably not.
8 Q I would want to drive a car that suits my needs and
9 has nothing to do with this suit. So, I guess, you’re trying
10 to put a value on something that really doesn’t have value and
11 that’s the physical appearance of some material item to you.
12 And so, whether I like it or not, is irrelevant. So, that’s
13 why I just wanted to understand what you meant by, it doesn’t
14 look presentable. And so –-
15 A And more importantly -–
16 Q -- there’s a –- I’m sorry?
17 A I didn’t mean to interrupt, I am sorry.
18 Q That’s all right. That’s all right.
19 A What I was pointing out is, it’s a moot point. The
20 law requires that she restore the property that was damaged.
21 Q All right.
22 A They came to us and said they’re not going to fix
23 your property, it’s not worth it. We’re going to give you this
24 money. All I’ve done is I’ve pointed out the areas in that
25 thing –-
52
1 Q And that is admitted into evidence.
2 A It’s irrelevant like why, what the value is, the dent
3 is. The point is, she’s got to, they’ve got to restore the
4 property to its, they have to replace the property or repair
5 it. They came to me and they said, no, we’re not going to
6 repair it. It’s above, it’s less than 75 percent or something
7 like that and it’s totaled. You’re going to get a salvage
8 certificate.
9 Just stuff with me filing a continuation, what you’re
10 saying is that if USAA, at this point in time, has changed
11 their mind, to change horses, you know, we’re not going to give
12 you the value of the car at the time of the accident. We’re
13 going to do something different. What we’re going to do is
14 we’re going to get it repaired. Then I would file a
15 continuation because that’s a different situation.
16 They had a year and a half to change their mind and I
17 tried to get them to change their mind about that, but they
18 refused. So, I mean, at the end of the day, it’s too late for
19 them to make that decision. It’s also too late for them to,
20 you know, come up with some other favorable way to settle this
21 trial.
22 Q I understand what you’re saying. I understand. All
23 right, so, anything else from you, Mr. Taylor?
24 A Thank you for asking, no.
53
1 THE COURT: All right, so, let’s turn to the defense,
2 Mr. Ryder.
3 MR. RYDER: Your Honor, initially, I’d make the
4 motion for judgment on behalf of the defendant, Andre Ledoux.
5 He has been named, there was an allegation he was the owner of
6 the vehicle. There has been no testimony about him and his
7 relationship to the vehicle or his relationship to this
8 accident.
9 THE COURT: That motion, do you have anything to say
10 about that, Mr. Taylor?
11 MR. TAYLOR: I would like you to consider the fact
12 that I’m, I’ve done the best I can in terms of finding out the
13 relevant information. USAA is the name of the insurance
14 company that the driver gave to me or to Rebecca. USAA went to
15 the trouble of doing all this under the assumption that they
16 are liable.
17 Now, in terms of the exact ownership of the car, I
18 did not file a discovery motion to get a title and I do not
19 know for a fact that the truck, I would think that the owner of
20 the car that hit Rebecca Zeltinger’s vehicle that she was
21 driving, at least, has a legal responsibility and exactly what,
22 it doesn’t matter which of the two was driving the car as far
23 as I am concerned. The point is that they have an insurance
24 company. That insurance company, well, no, I take it back. It
25 is the negligence of the driver, I think.

54
1 THE COURT: All right, so, you agree that Mr. Ledoux,
2 Andre Ledoux can be excused from this lawsuit?
3 MR. TAYLOR: I’m not exactly sure. I do challenge it
4 because I think it’s possible and it’s just my ignorance of the
5 law here. You actually would know the answer better than me,
6 but it could be the case that he has responsibility because
7 he’s the owner.
8 THE COURT: Well, it would be your burden to show
9 that, sir, and you have not done that. So, Mr. Andre Ledoux is
10 dismissed from this suit. Your motion is granted as to Mr.
11 Andre Ledoux.
12 MR. RYDER: Thank you, Your Honor. I would call
13 Thomas Clark.
14 THE COURT: All right, sir, do you want to come up?
15 MR. CLARK: Yes.
16 THE COURT: And if you’d step up into the box and
17 raise your right hand, the clerk will give you the oath.
18 THOMAS CLARK
19 called as a witness on behalf of the defendant, having been
20 first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:
21 THE COURT: All right, sir, you can have a seat. I
22 just ask that you keep your voice up, speak into the microphone
23 for us. That chair does not move, unfortunately. Can you
24 start off by telling us your name?
25 THE WITNESS: Thomas Clark.

55
1 THE COURT: All right, thank you, sir.
3 BY MR. RYDER:
4 Q And by whom are you employed, sir?
5 A United Service Automobile Association, otherwise
6 known as USAA.
7 Q What do you do for them?
8 A I’m the physical damage specialist.
9 Q What does that mean?
10 A I manage select vendors who do repairs for us, that
11 do repairs for us in the Washington, D. C. metro area.
12 THE COURT: And you mean auto repairs?
13 THE WITNESS: Yes, collision repairs.
14 THE COURT: Collision repairs.
15 BY MR. RYDER:
16 Q How long have you done that?
17 A 19 years.
18 Q And what did you do before that?
19 A Before that, I was still with USAA. I was a bodily
20 injury specialist.
21 Q And talking about your experience with the property
22 damage part of it, have you had occasion in your years with
23 USAA to write property damage estimates for damaged vehicles?
24 A Yes.
25 Q For how long a period of time did you do that?

56
1 A Approximately two years.
2 Q And have you had an opportunity in your work with
3 USAA to participate in the preparation of total loss
4 evaluations of vehicles that have been damaged in collisions?
5 A Yes.
6 Q How many total loss evaluations do you think you’ve
7 done in 10 years?
8 A Oh, thousands, sir.
9 Q About property damage estimates?
10 A Thousands, I would say on the average of about maybe
11 900 to a thousand a year.
12 Q Okay, there came a time when you got involved in this
13 matter regarding the damage to Mr. Taylor’s vehicle, correct?
14 A Yes.
15 Q And you’ve had a chance to review the estimate, the
16 total loss evaluation photographs of the vehicles?
17 A Yes.
18 Q Let me show you what has been marked as Defendant’s
19 Exhibit No. 1. Can you identify what that is?
20 MR. TAYLOR: Your Honor, what are we looking at here?
21 MR. RYDER: I’m sorry, it’s the estimate that I gave
22 you.
23 THE COURT: Do you recognize No. 1?
24 THE WITNESS: Yes, this is an estimate of record of
25 one of our direct repair shops.

57
1 THE COURT: I’m sorry, one of your what?
2 THE WITNESS: Direct repair shops.
3 BY MR. RYDER:
4 Q Explain to the judge what that means, direct repair
5 shops.
6 A A direct repair shop is an independent body shop that
7 we have a relationship with that we send, we give the customers
8 the opportunity to go write an estimate and or repair the
9 vehicle.
10 THE COURT: Yes.
11 BY MR. RYDER:
12 Q All right and when you use a direct repair facility,
13 does the customer get a guarantee on the repair?
14 A Yes.
15 Q So, that’s the benefit to the customer of using that
16 facility.
17 A Yes.
18 Q Okay, Exhibit No. 1, is that the estimate written on
19 Mr. Taylor’s vehicle?
20 A Yes.
21 Q Can I take that copy of that and I would offer
22 Exhibit No. 1.
24 MR. RYDER: Or if I can give the witness the copy.
25 THE COURT: Sure, of course. Mr. James, do you have

58
1 any objection, Mr. Taylor, excuse me, do you have any objection
2 to Defendant’s No. 1 being received into evidence? First of
3 all, do you have it in front of you?
4 MR. TAYLOR: I have Defendant’s Exhibit No. 2.
5 THE COURT: Got it?
6 MR. TAYLOR: Okay, yes, I have it. Do I have any
7 objections to it?
8 THE COURT: Yes. Have you seen it before?
9 MR. TAYLOR: Not even at this moment, yeah, I do have
10 objections to it.
11 THE COURT: And what are your objections, sir?
12 MR. TAYLOR: Okay, this particular exhibit, for
13 instance, on page 3, says, owner has right rear glass taped up,
14 says not working since collision. So, the point of that is
15 that the estimate doesn’t include the repair for that. I
16 guess, so, also, it says, let’s see –-
17 THE COURT: So, sir, what are your objections to the
18 document?
19 MR. TAYLOR: I think that there is –- well, first of
20 all, I think there’s some errors in there, but that’s
21 imperfection, no one’s perfect. It’s excusable. I also think
22 this is, maybe it’s not an objection. What I do think is that
23 this is by the insurance company and I think it’s biased in
24 their favor.
25 THE COURT: All right, objection is overruled. It’s

59
1 admitted and you can cross examine him on that, sir.
3 identification as Defendant’s
5 evidence.)
6 MR. TAYLOR: Okay.
7 THE COURT: Go ahead.
8 BY MR. RYDER:
9 Q Thank you, Your Honor. What was the amount of the
10 repair estimate?
11 A The repair estimate was $1,867.73.
12 Q All right and was there any prior damage or damage
13 that existed before the accident noted on the estimate? And
14 for the Court, I refer you to page 3. If you can just tell,
15 Her Honor, what the prior damage was.
16 A Yes, it says here that the prior damage includes
17 front bumper scrapes, grill and hood use, hood damage, door
18 outer panels right side, door dings, light scratches, door
19 outer panels left side, door dings, light scratches.
20 THE COURT: And where are you reading that, sir?
21 THE WITNESS: This is about midway –-
22 THE COURT: I see prior damage notes. Oh, I see. I
23 see, sorry, I see. So, it says prior damage colon front bumper
24 scrapes, grills included, I see, thank you.
25 THE WITNESS: Okay, right quarter door dings, left

60
1 quarter door dings, scuff marked left mirror, several prior tag
2 impressions rear bumper.
3 THE COURT: Rear cover.
4 THE WITNESS: Rear cover, yes, I’m sorry.
5 BY MR. RYDER:
6 Q All right and in the next paragraph, there’s some
7 indication about some lights on the dash at the top.
8 A Yes, it says, on, this is, also states that check
9 engine light on since accident. Owner also have brake light on
10 dash, but says they are prior.
11 Q Okay and let me show you what has been marked as
12 Defendant’s Exhibit No. 2. What is Exhibit No. 2?
13 A Exhibit No. 2 is the CCC-1 Market Valuation Report.
14 Q All right is that what we’ve been talking about as a
15 total loss evaluation?
16 A Yes, sir.
17 Q Why would there be a total loss evaluation if an
18 estimate was done?
19 MR. TAYLOR: If what? I didn’t hear you.
20 BY MR. RYDER:
21 Q Why would there be a total loss evaluation prepared
22 if an estimate was done?
23 A Because the cost of the estimate was considered to be
24 the cost or the value of the vehicle. So, what we coach our
25 vendor partners to do is if it gets to a certain dollar amount,

61
1 that you are to run a valuation on the vehicle to see what that
2 value of the vehicle is and this is done in effort to determine
3 if the vehicle is a total loss or not, as opposed to repair.
4 Q Okay and what point, what dollar value triggers a
5 vehicle for becoming a total loss?
6 A Generally 75 percent of the value. The estimate, if
7 the estimate reaches close to 75 percent of the value.
8 Q Of the vehicle.
9 A Of the vehicle.
10 Q Okay and that is something that is dictated by
11 Maryland law.
12 A Yes, sir.
13 Q Okay, back to Exhibit No. 1 for a second. Was there
14 anything on that estimate that indicated that this vehicle was
15 not drivable after the accident?
16 A Not that I can see. Not that I see here, sir.
17 Q Okay.
18 A Nothing indicating in the notes or anything.
19 Q All right, so, an estimate is prepared. There’s a
20 concern that maybe we’re getting close to 75 percent of the
21 value, so, Exhibit No. 2 is prepared, The Total Loss Valuation.
22 A Yes, sir.
23 Q All right, explain what, hang on one second. Let me
24 give you a copy, let me hand Exhibit No. 2 to the judge and
25 offer it into evidence.

62
1 THE COURT: Thank you. So, you’re offering No. 2?
2 MR. RYDER: I am, Your Honor.
3 THE COURT: Any objection?
4 MR. TAYLOR: What is your question, Your Honor.
5 THE COURT: Do you have any objection, sir.
6 MR. TAYLOR: To them, Exhibit 2 being entered as
7 evidence?
8 THE COURT: Yes.
9 MR. TAYLOR: Just a moment, let me review this.
10 THE COURT: Have you ever seen it before?
11 MR. TAYLOR: Probably, but keep in mind, this is over
12 the course of a year and half, a year and a half ago. Okay,
13 so, this is a Market Valuation Report. Yeah, I object to -–
14 THE COURT: What’s the basis of your objection?
15 MR. TAYLOR: Okay, I guess I am confused about
16 whether I’m objecting to what’s in here versus whether this can
17 be admitted as evidence.
18 THE COURT: Well, you can object to what’s in there
19 by and you can express those objections on your cross
20 examination of the witness.
22 THE COURT: Do you have a legal objection to this
23 document?
24 MR. TAYLOR: Being entered as evidence.
25 THE COURT: Yes.

63
1 MR. TAYLOR: No.
2 THE COURT: All right, it’s received.
4 identification as Defendant’s
5 Exhibit No. 2 is received in
6 evidence.)
7 BY MR. RYDER:
8 Q I just want to quickly walk the Court through what
9 this exhibit contains, okay?
10 A That’s fine.
11 Q So, let’s start on page 1. Claim information,
12 insurance information and then the third section is valuation
13 summary. Just explain to the judge that valuation summary and
14 how those numbers get there?
15 A Yes, valuation summary is derived from a CCC database
16 where they keep data on almost every type of vehicle you can
17 imagine, but it’s, to better explain it, I would go to page 2,
18 for example and give that example, second section called a
19 database review, followed by the search for comparable
20 vehicles, comparables, followed by calculate the dates, vehicle
21 value.
22 Q And that’s information that is contained on page 2 of
23 the CCC evaluation?
24 A Yes.
25 Q Okay and based on that methodology then there’s a

64
1 base vehicle valuation established?
2 A That’s correct, sir.
3 Q And what was the amount of that on this vehicle?
4 A Based vehicle value was $3,140.
5 Q And then the next line says condition adjustment.
6 What does that mean?
7 A Condition adjustment means that there was certain
8 items about the condition of the vehicle taken into account
9 looking at the visual overall view of the mechanical, interior,
10 paint exterior, interior parts of the vehicle.
11 Q All right and that creates then an adjusted vehicle
12 value?
13 A That’s correct.
14 Q So, that’s the base vehicle value with the condition
15 adjustment, so, it’s the adjusted vehicle value?
16 A Yes.
17 Q And what was the amount of the adjusted vehicle value
18 for this vehicle?
19 A $2,404.
20 Q All right and then there’s an entry for tax at 6
21 percent. What’s that?
22 A That’s the State of Maryland taxes added on for the
23 value.
24 Q All right and then that gives us a total value on
25 this vehicle of what amount?

65
1 A $2,548.24.
2 Q Okay, now that is a value for the vehicle, assuming
3 that Mr. Taylor would sign the title of the vehicle over to
4 USAA in exchange for that amount of money, correct?
5 A That’s correct, sir.
6 Q And then USAA would salvage the vehicle?
7 A Yes.
8 Q And was there a salvage amount established for this
9 vehicle?
10 A Yes, sir.
11 Q And that was $402 in Plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 1, I
12 believe?
13 A Yes, sir.
14 Q Okay, if Mr. Taylor didn’t want to turn the vehicle
15 over to USAA, he wanted to keep the vehicle and get the fair
16 market value, the salvage would be deducted from this total
17 valuation?
18 A That is correct.
19 Q Because USAA is not getting possession of the vehicle
20 to turn around and resell?
22 Q All right, let’s turn to page number 2, that’s the
23 valuation methodology that you were explaining as to how CCC
24 does its valuing?
25 A Yes, sir.
66
1 Q Okay and then page number 3 is vehicle information
2 and the top section that contains the specifics about this
3 particular vehicle.
4 A Yes, sir.
5 Q All right, and then, explain what vehicle history
6 summary is, the next section down.
7 A In the database, it says the vehicle is indicated as
8 one collision estimate in July 30, 2014. It did an Experian
9 auto check and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
10 shows that it had five recalls.
11 Q Okay, with regards to the collision estimate in July
12 of 2014, let me ask you to flip to page 11, entitled,
13 Supplemental Information. Does that give us information about
14 that prior collision?
15 A Yes, sir.
16 Q All right, so, what was the amount of damage that was
17 done to the vehicle in the prior collision?
18 A It said here estimate $7,809.23.
19 Q And at what miles on the vehicle was that?
20 A 55,237.
21 Q All right and the location of the vehicle of the
22 damage is where?
23 A It says front end, front.
24 Q Okay, let me have you go back and flip to page number
25 4 of the CCC estimate, titled, Vehicle Information. Explain

67
1 what this page shows.
2 A Vehicle information page shows the options that are
3 listed on the vehicle. Those check marks indicate that the,
4 that is what the vehicle has as standard and the clipboard
5 looking thing indicates those were equipment that were not
6 standard, but were noted on the vehicle by the writer.
7 Q All right and the clipboard thing that you’re talking
8 about is if you go down the check marks until you get down to
9 home link, there’s a little box with some stuff in the middle
10 of it.
11 A Yes, sir.
12 Q That’s the clipboard?
13 A Yes, sir.
14 Q Okay, so, that means that particular thing was on the
15 vehicle, but it’s not, it’s an extra, it wasn’t a standard
16 option.
18 Q Okay, and then, flipping to page 5, that’s a
19 continuation of the equipment on the vehicle?
20 A Yes, sir.
21 Q Okay, let’s go to page 6, Vehicle Condition. Explain
22 what that means.
23 A That is a write up indicating what was observed on
24 vehicle regarding the overall appearance, overall condition of
25 the vehicle. You want me to read from it?

68
1 Q No, sir. Let me show you what’s been marked as
2 Defendant’s Exhibit No. 3. That is a packet of 21 different
3 pages, correct with markings –- oh, I’m sorry, I apologize.
4 All right, let me show you what’s been marked as Defendant’s
5 Exhibit No. 3. Have you seen that packet of photographs
6 before?
7 A Yes, sir.
8 Q What’s depicted in those photographs?
9 A Generally the write up of what’s on page 6, Vehicle
10 Condition, these photos support what that write up indicate.
11 Q Let me take Exhibit No. 3 from you and I will offer
12 that into evidence and give you a copy.
13 THE COURT: It’s received.
15 identification as
16 Defendant’s Exhibit No. 3
17 was received in evidence.)
18 BY MR. RYDER:
19 Q Thank you, Your Honor. Okay, let’s go to the first
20 section on Vehicle Condition, Mechanical. Are there different
21 categories as to the condition of the vehicle?
22 A It’s broken down into mechanical as indicated here,
23 tires condition, paint condition, body condition, glass
24 condition.
25 Q Okay and how about the condition, there some of them

69
1 are marked fair, some of them marked good. Are there different
2 categories that condition can fall into?
3 A Yes, sir.
4 Q Okay, the mechanical condition was rated as fair.
5 Can you explain what the report says as far as the condition
6 mechanically of the vehicle?
7 A Yes, sir. This says that dirt and grease engine
8 compartment, the fan top cover is broken, air cleaner box
9 broken and glued to the other, coolant line, housing visible,
10 signs of glue, belts and hoses show signs of wear.
11 Q All right, let me refer you now to Exhibit No. 3, the
12 photographs. The first photograph, the one on the bottom right
13 hand corner, what does that depict?
14 A It appears to be a picture of a radiator hose going
15 into the actual radiator assembly itself.
16 Q Okay and you mention that these photographs were
17 taken to support what was contained in the inspection notes.
18 What does this photograph show with regards to the mechanical
19 condition of the vehicle?
20 A That it is not, it is, given that its glued, that
21 it’s not in good condition.
22 THE COURT: And where is it glued, right here?
23 THE WITNESS: Yes, ma’am.
24 THE COURT: All right, thank you.
25 BY MR. RYDER:
70
1 Q All right, flip to the next page, number 2. What
2 does that show?
3 A It appears to be a picture of the air cleaner box.
4 Q All right and what does that show regarding the
5 condition?
6 A There would, a good air cleaner box would not show
7 evidence of glue adhesive.
8 THE COURT: Right here.
9 THE WITNESS: Your Honor, you can see it.
10 BY MR. RYDER:
11 Q All right, let’s go to number 3. What does that
12 show?
13 A No. 3 appears to show door dings on the side of the
14 vehicle.
15 Q All right, I’ve got number 3 as being the engine
16 compartment.
17 THE COURT: Yes, it is.
18 THE WITNESS: I am so sorry, yes, that’s the overall
19 view of the engine compartment.
20 BY MR. RYDER:
21 Q Okay, does that show the fan top cover?
22 A Yes.
23 Q All right, can you point out to the Court where it is
24 broken?
25 A Your Honor, it appears at the 10:00 cover is broken

71
1 here.
2 THE COURT: Yes, I see it.
3 BY MR. RYDER:
4 Q All right and then the next section were tires and
5 the condition was good?
6 A Yes, sir.
7 Q All right and then the next section was paint and
8 that’s listed as fair. Can you explain to the judge why that
9 was graded as fair?
10 A Yes, sir, it indicates that there were light surface
11 scratches on several panels, fenders, doors, quarter panel, mid
12 center has primer spot, center leading edge, scrape left mirror
13 cover.
14 Q And then the body, the next section down is also
15 listed as fair. Can you explain to the judge why?
16 A It says here numerous door dings, several outer panel
17 left side front and rear door outer panel, fender and quarter,
18 right side outer panels, door dings, fender and quarters, front
19 cover scrapes, good damage prior.
20 Q Okay and let’s flip now to Exhibit No. 3 and look at
21 page 4. Can you tell the Court what that shows?
22 A That appears to be door dings.
23 Q Okay, number 5, what does that show?
24 A Scratch, scratches.
25 Q Number 6.
72
1 A That appears to be hood damage.
2 Q All right and does that appear as if it had been
3 primered?
4 A It appears to be primered, either primer or what we
5 call clear coat lamination.
6 Q Okay, number 7, what does that show?
7 A Either primer or clear coat lamination on the hood.
8 THE COURT: What are you calling it, clear coat what?
9 THE WITNESS: Clear coat lamination. That’s where
10 they clear up, when a car is painted, most of the painted, you
11 have two stages. One is called a base coat.
12 THE COURT: Right.
13 THE WITNESS: And the top clear is called the clear
14 coat.
15 THE COURT: Yes.
16 THE WITNESS: And some vehicles after a certain age
17 or affecting the sun, that clear coat has started to dissipate
18 or fade.
19 THE COURT: Right, so, you can’t say that somebody
20 has either put some primer on this as an attempt to repair it
21 or whether or not the clear coat has sort of aged, but,
22 clearly, I can see from number 7, there’s a defect to this
23 hood.
24 THE WITNESS: Yes, ma’am.

73
1 BY MR. RYDER:
2 Q Page number 8, what does that show?
3 A Scratches on mirror.
4 Q Number 9.
5 A That appears to be scratches on the quarter.
6 Q All right, 10.
7 A Rear bumper, front bumper, front bumper scratches.
8 Q Exhibit 3, page 11.
9 A Left side of the vehicle, looks like they’re trying
10 to show overall condition, overall of the left side, possibly
11 (unintelligible).
12 Q All right and number, page 12.
13 A Overall view of the left side of the right side of
14 the vehicle from front to rear.
15 Q All right and the next section on Exhibit No. 2, page
16 6 is the interior of the vehicle which graded that as a fair.
17 Explain to the judge why.
18 A Yes, sir, it says here that the trim panels light
19 scratches, leather seats show signs of fading and
20 discoloration, leather shows sign of surface cracking, pocket
21 behind driver’s seat is glued on one side, carpet is soiled,
22 head liner on sunroof is missing, cloth lining separation of
23 cloth on inner trim passenger side hinge filler, soiling of
24 quarter interior trims, right, I’m sorry, soiling of quarter
25 interior trims right and left rear, appears of glue seams,

74
1 headline several dirt spots on them.
2 Q Okay, let me refer you to Defendant’s Exhibit 3,
3 beginning on page 13. Can you explain to the Court what that
4 shows?
5 A That’s a photo of the sunroof headliner missing, the
6 cloth missing.
7 Q All right, page 14.
8 A That’s a photo of the taped up passenger side rear
9 window.
10 Q All right and in fairness that’s where the notes say
11 that the owner was claiming that was accident related, correct?
12 A Yes, sir.
13 Q All right, number 15, what does that show?
14 A That’s a photo of the driver’s side, the rear of the
15 driver’s side front seat showing the pocket, the rear pocket,
16 looks like maybe it’s been glued.
17 Q All right, number 16, what does that show?
18 A That’s the headliner at the quarter trim that appears
19 to be loose.
20 Q How about number 17?
21 A Same on the opposite side of the vehicle.
22 Q So, the headliner, the stuff on the ceiling is loose.
23 A Yes and the, also looks like the quarter trim is
24 loose on that picture as well.
25 Q All right, page 18 –-

75
1 THE COURT: Well it looks, you can see the headliner
2 and on this pillar here is coming off.
3 THE WITNESS: The cloth as well, yes, ma’am.
4 THE COURT: Cloth, the materials are.
5 BY MR. RYDER:
6 Q Page 18, what does that show?
7 A Page 18 is a own view of the left rear, showing an
8 overall view of the left rear showing the seat bottom,
9 condition on the seat bottom.
10 Q Was that wear on the outside?
11 A Seems to be wear, yes.
12 Q Page 19, that’s another view of the same thing?
13 A Yes, sir.
14 Q Page 20, what’s that?
15 A That’s a photo looking at the front of the vehicle,
16 driver front seat.
17 Q Okay, shows wear?
18 A Showing wear.
19 Q All right and 21 is another shot of the back seat.
20 A Yes, from the right side of the vehicle.
21 Q All right, now, back on Exhibit No. 2, aside each of
22 those categories for the various parts of the vehicle, there’s
23 a column for value impact. What does that mean?
24 A That is the amount of money that has been taken off
25 from the overall, from the condition of the vehicle.

76
1 Q Okay and on page 7, that value impact total is up to
2 $706?
3 A Yes, sir.
4 Q And that is the condition adjustment that was made
5 back on page 1 of the summary to get to the valuation of the
6 vehicle.
7 A That is correct, sir.
8 Q All right, let’s go to the next page, page 8.
9 Comparable vehicle, explain to the Court what that means.
10 A That is, first you have the last vehicle being
11 comparable 1, comp number 2 and that’s vehicles that are
12 similar to the last vehicle that were found in the particular
13 market.
14 Q Okay and in the columns, there’s check marks and X’s,
15 what do those signify?
16 A The check marks being that the particular vehicles
17 have those options that are listed to the left. The X means
18 that the vehicle does not have the options.
19 Q All right and then on page 9, midway down the page,
20 there is a section entitled, adjustments. Explain to the Court
21 what that is.
22 A That means that the, if the comps, if they have a
23 particular option or don’t, they’re going to make a dollar
24 adjustment for that.
25 Q So as compared to the loss vehicle –

77
1 A As compared to the loss vehicle, yes, sir.
2 Q Okay and then the very bottom line is adjusted
3 comparable value, what is that?
4 A That is the, how those two comparable vehicles
5 compares to the loss vehicle.
6 Q All right and is that used, those numbers used in
7 order to get the base vehicle value for the valuation?
8 A Yes, sir.
9 Q And how does that happen that those two numbers turn
10 into the base vehicle value?
11 A Use the comp, they use the comp vehicles and the loss
12 vehicle to determine the overall value.
13 Q All right, so then, they take those two values on the
14 line adjusted comparable vehicle and they get an average.
15 A Yes, sir.
16 Q And that gets us to the $3,140 figure on page 1 for
17 the base vehicle value.
18 A Yes, sir.
19 Q Okay, all right and then just quickly that, the
20 remaining pages, strike that. Let me go back one second to
21 page 8. On the right-hand side of page 8, is that information
22 regarding the two comparable vehicles?
23 A Yes, sir. Yes, sir, do you want me to –
24 Q Yes, explain what that is.
25 A Okay, primarily, it shows the loss vehicle location,

78
1 but the other is says comp 2, I’m sorry, Your Honor, I’m
2 struggling here because I left my glasses this morning.
3 THE COURT: No, that’s all right.
4 THE WITNESS: So, bear with me. Comp 2 vehicle it
5 shows here that the vehicle was found in Mount Airy, Maryland
6 and the comp 1 vehicle was found in Sterling, Virginia.
7 BY MR. RYDER:
8 Q Okay, and then, page 11 is supplemental information.
9 We already talked about the prior collision to the vehicle.
10 A Yes, sir.
11 Q Page 12 is the Experian Auto Check.
12 A Yes, sir.
13 Q And that continued into page 14, 15 and then the
14 recalls are on page 16 and 17, correct?
15 A That is correct.
16 Q Okay, based upon your review of this matter and your
17 experience performing property damage estimates and total loss
18 evaluations, do you have an opinion as to whether or not the
19 valuation for this vehicle, the fair market value for this
20 vehicle before this accident, the figure of $2,548.24 is fair
21 and reasonable?
22 A Yes.
23 Q And where does that come in.
24 A Repeat that question, please.
25 Q Sure, is it your opinion that that figure, $2,548.24

79
1 is a fair and reasonable valuation of this vehicle given the
2 information that we just reviewed?
3 A Yes, sir.
4 Q Okay, Mr. Taylor had talked about the fact that there
5 was a new engine in the vehicle. Explain to the Court what
6 impact a new engine has on the value of the vehicle.
7 A If it’s a new engine it could have some bearing on
8 the overall value of the vehicle if the engine that was, if the
9 replacement engine, let me put it that way, was new and our
10 knowledge on brand new engine it could have an overall value
11 aspect on the vehicle.
12 However, if that replacement engine was a used
13 engine, a remanufactured engine and given this amount of time
14 that passed between when it was installed versus when the
15 accident happened, it may or may not have any value at all.
16 Q Is an engine that was put in 50,000 plus miles ago
17 have any significant impact on the valuation of the vehicle?
18 A When you say significant, no, sir, not a significant
19 amount. If, again, if it’s a new engine, it may have some
20 bearing at 57,000 miles because it’s not 108,000, but it’s not
21 going to have a significant value.
22 Q Okay, Mr. Taylor also mentioned the fact that the
23 vehicle had Maryland safety inspection. Is that significant
24 with regard to the valuation?
25 A No, sir.
80
1 Q All right, is it assumed that a vehicle that is being
2 evaluated and used as a comparable is road worthy and passes
3 safety inspections?
4 A Yes, sir.
5 Q And that would figure into the condition overall of
6 the vehicle as it was rated under the vehicle condition
7 section?
8 A Yes, sir.
9 Q Same with vehicle emissions test?
10 A Correct, sir.
12 THE COURT: Cross.
13 CROSS-EXAMINATION
14 BY MR. TAYLOR:
15 Q All right, Mr. Clark, you have worked for a while for
16 USAA. Have you ever worked for the other side, people like me?
17 A No, sir.
18 Q Okay, while you were employed with USAA have you ever
19 been, have you ever given an estimate for the value of a car
20 that was higher than your management wanted it to be?
21 A I’m not sure I understand the question.
22 Q Did you ever have an estimate made and then somebody
23 else who is above you in rank at your company tell you that
24 that number is high.
25 A No, sir.
81
1 Q No, okay. When I called the place, I was told to go
2 to, I asked what their labor rate was, just made a phone call
3 and I got a number per hour of their labor rate. When I went
4 and took the car there and got this written estimate for that I
5 am supposed to be able to use to go and get repairs done
6 elsewhere in case I just want to go to my own repair shop, I
7 got a different number.
8 In other words, if I tried to have the car repaired
9 according to the things that are broken with it, I would have
10 to pay out of pocket because there’s a discrepancy in the labor
11 rate. Can you explain that discrepancy?
12 A I think you are correct in that you would probably
13 have to pay higher maybe.
14 Q No, I have to pay out of pocket because the number of
15 hours –-
16 A Out of pocket, yes. The rate that you might get
17 quoted by calling the shop, any shop really, but by calling the
18 shop and saying, hey, what is your rate, they’re going to give
19 you what they call the out of pocket or COD rate.
20 When you go in for an insurance estimate, they’re
21 going to give you what’s known as the prevailing labor rate for
22 the area that body shops charge the insurance companies.
23 Q And why is there a discrepancy? I am still confused.
24 A The prevailing labor rate is the rate that has been
25 agreed on between the insurance companies and the body shops to

82
1 allow for the repairs of the vehicles.
2 Q If I went in and said I want you to repair this,
3 here’s a check, I would end up paying some money because of the
4 discrepancy, am I right?
5 A If you did not present that insurance estimate and
6 you repaired it out of pocket without presenting an estimate -–
7 Q If I did present the insurance estimate -–
8 A Then the shop would use the prevailing labor rate
9 that’s listed on the estimate.
10 Q And they take a loss, basically, because of the
11 discrepancy, am I right?
12 A I wouldn’t call it a loss. It’s the prevailing labor
13 rate what they all agreed to.
14 Q But they’re not going to get as much money.
15 A No.
16 Q I mean, it’s the same work, they’re getting less
17 money because I gave them that estimate. They may actually
18 reject the work, right?
19 A I don’t know, sir.
20 Q Your Honor, I want to talk about –
21 THE COURT: You’re asking questions of this witness.
22 BY MR. TAYLOR:
23 Q Look at page 25 of my Exhibit 2. If you look at
24 that, that’s a different appraisal, not the appraisal you
25 estimated the car’s value. What’s the valuation of the car

83
1 that this company that says they’re the most popular appraisal
2 company in the nation, what was the number that they gave for
3 the car, the valuation?
4 A Are you speaking of (unintelligible) page, it says
5 overall rating sound appraised value $7,926.
6 Q Okay, why is that different than $2,404 in your
7 opinion?
8 MR. RYDER: Objection, speculation as to why somebody
9 else gave -–
10 THE COURT: Really, he didn’t fill this out, but can
11 you answer that? Do you know why there’s a difference?
12 THE WITNESS: Give me a minute to review this, Your
13 Honor. Your Honor, I don’t really know because there are no
14 comparable here.
15 THE COURT: Right, exactly, so, you don’t know the
16 answer to that question.
17 THE WITNESS: No, I don’t.
18 THE COURT: Next question. I’m sorry, so, the
19 objection is sustained. He can’t answer that. It is what it
20 is.
21 BY MR. TAYLOR:
22 Q Now, let me ask you another question. Have you ever
23 come up with, seen other estimates of vehicles where there is a
24 difference and the number is different than USAA’s number is?
25 MR. RYDER: Objection, Your Honor.

84
1 BY MR. TAYLOR:
2 Q While you’re employed at USAA?
3 THE COURT: Overruled, can you answer?
4 THE WITNESS: Your question again, sir?
5 BY MR. TAYLOR:
6 Q Have you ever, in a proceeding like this, perhaps,
7 dealt with an estimate for a car where the estimate was higher
8 than or different than USAA’s is what my question was?
9 A Yes.
10 Q And in those situations, have you ever asked
11 yourself, well, wow, that number is different than mine. Have
12 you ever asked yourself why that might be?
14 THE COURT: Sustained. We have, I guess, about 37
15 more minutes, so, you want to finish up or just keep that in
16 mind as you’re finishing up because I have another matter at
17 1:30.
19 THE COURT: Keep going, just keep that in mind.
20 BY MR. TAYLOR:
21 Q Okay, all these different pictures that you went over
22 just now with the defendant’s attorney and all that stuff,
23 let’s just go into 1 right now. Number 1, the very top picture,
24 Defendant’s Exhibit 3, you said just now, I think, correct me
25 if I am wrong, I heard the word glued. Something was glued to

85
1 something, what is exactly glued to what in this picture?
2 A So, I said, it appeared to be that there is some
3 adhesive that is on, extending from the radiator to the hose.
4 Q Yes.
5 A Yes.
6 Q Oh, oh, so, you think that the, are you saying the
7 hose there’s adhesive holding them together?
8 A I am saying that there is a, there’s evidence of
9 adhesive on the neck of the radiator.
10 Q I actually put that there and drop down –
11 THE COURT: Sir, sir, you’re not testifying, you are
12 cross examining.
13 BY MR. TAYLOR:
14 Q But why would you use the glued. What is glued to
15 what? If there’s glue on top you wouldn’t use that word now
16 would you, you would say that there’s glue on top, there’s glue
17 sitting on top of this hose, am I correct? The word glued is a
18 verb meaning that it’s holding something together, but if it’s
19 sitting on top, there’s some glue on it. Do you see the
20 difference? The word glued is not an appropriate word. Would
21 you agree or disagree?
22 A I don’t understand the (unintelligible).
23 Q Look at the picture, do you see the glue that’s
24 sitting on top of the radiator hose?
25 A There appears to be some adhesive on the radiator,

86
1 yes, on the neck of the radiator.
2 Q Is that glue holding anything there together or is it
3 just sitting there completely having no effect on anything?
4 A I don’t know.
5 Q Do you think that it’s actually serving a purpose
6 besides just sitting there?
7 A Generally speaking, one would not see adhesive on a
8 radiator unless it’s there to prevent a leak or something along
9 those lines.
10 Q Let me ask you a hypothetical. If the section of the
11 interior of an engine bay has adhesive just sticking there and
12 doesn’t look sightly, in other words, it looks bad, does that
13 affect the value of a car?
14 A It could, yes, it could adversely affect.
15 THE COURT: It did in this case because he cited it.
17 THE COURT: He cited it in his report.
18 BY MR. TAYLOR:
19 Q Well, in the interest of time, I will try and move
20 forward. Bear with me while I gather my thoughts here. Well,
21 so, you have never worked for, you’ve never not worked for,
22 within the auto industry, you’ve always pretty much been
23 employed by an insurance company and you worked on that side of
24 the street, so to speak, am I correct?
25 I mean, just repeating the question I asked earlier.

87
1 You haven’t worked for people who are trying, who want to get a
2 valuation of their car to oppose an insurance company.
3 A No.
4 MR. TAYLOR: Okay, all right. I have no further
5 questions.
6 THE COURT: All right, anything in light of that?
7 MR. RYDER: No.
8 THE COURT: All right, you can step down, sir.
11 THE COURT: Anything else?
12 MR. RYDER: Your Honor, I would call Joanne Ledoux
13 very briefly.
14 THE COURT: All right, ma’am, you can come on up. If
15 you just step up and raise your right hand, the clerk will give
16 you the oath.
17 JOANNE LEDOUX
18 the defendant, having been first duly sworn, was examined and
19 testified as follows:
20 THE COURT: You can have a seat, ma’am. Yes, go
21 ahead.
23 BY MR. RYDER:
24 Q State your name, please.
25 A Joanne Eunice Ledoux.

88
1 Q Your address?
2 A 10111 Galsworthy Place, Bethesda, 20817.
3 Q Are you employed?
4 A Yes.
5 THE COURT: Ma’am, I ask you to keep your voice up.
6 Speak into that microphone.
7 THE WITNESS: I’m sorry.
8 THE COURT: That’s all right.
9 BY MR. RYDER:
10 Q What do you do?
11 A I’m a dentist.
12 Q How long have you done that?
13 A 11 years.
14 Q Let me turn your attention to June 15th of 2018, you
15 were involved in this accident that day.
16 A Yes, sir.
17 Q At Route 355?
18 A Yes, sir.
19 Q Where were you coming from?
20 A From a meeting in downtown Rockville.
21 Q Where were you going?
22 A I was dropping off my boss at home.
23 Q And you were headed southbound on Route 355?
24 A Correct.
25 Q Towards D.C.
89
1 A Correct.
2 Q All right, what kind of vehicle were you driving?
3 A A Toyota 4Runner 2013.
4 Q How many lanes were there in your direction?
5 A Three.
6 Q Which lane were you in?
7 A Middle lane.
8 Q Did this happen at an intersection?
9 A No, sir.
10 Q Okay, what were the traffic conditions like?
11 A Relatively heavy, but consistent.
12 Q All right, was traffic moving or was it at a
13 standstill?
14 A It was moving.
15 Q All right, how fast was traffic moving immediately
16 before the accident happened?
17 A I was going about 20-25 miles an hour.
18 Q And was your vehicle behind the plaintiff’s vehicle?
19 A Yes.
20 Q How far were you following behind the vehicle?
21 A I would say two cars.
22 Q Okay, what happened?
23 A I heard the screeching of tires. That was the first
24 thing I heard and then the brake lights and I tried to brake as
25 much as I could in that amount of time and I hit the vehicle

90
1 from the back.
2 Q Okay, so, the vehicle ahead of you came to a stop.
3 A Correct.
4 Q Describe how it came to a stop, slow and gradual,
5 sudden, somewhere in between.
6 A An immediate stop.
7 Q Okay, did you see why it was stopping?
8 A At the time I did not see why it was stopping.
9 Q Was there anything in front of the vehicle that you
10 saw that would have required it to stop in between
11 intersections?
12 A I did not see anything.
13 Q All right, at some point after the accident happened,
14 did you learn why that vehicle had come to a stop?
15 A My boss immediately said did you see that deer.
16 Q Okay, did you ever talk to the driver of the car in
17 front of you?
18 A Yes, we veered off to the side. Once we stopped and
19 we removed ourselves from the vehicle we spoke about the deer
20 hitting and the driver of the other vehicle stated, did you see
21 that deer.
22 Q Okay, but you did not see the deer before the
23 accident?
24 A I did not.
25 Q And this was Route 355 in the vicinity of the Wooten

91
1 Parkway intersection?
2 A Yeah, in there.
3 Q At about what time of the day was it?
4 A I would say 5-5:30.
6 THE COURT: All right, cross?
7 CROSS-EXAMINATION
8 BY MR. TAYLOR:
9 Q I understand, help me understand. You were driving
10 the car, a 4Runner, maybe it’s a truck, I don’t know, and you
11 saw a stopped BMW and you didn’t slow down to avoid the
12 collision beforehand?
13 A I didn’t see a stopped BMW. We were moving.
14 Q It suddenly, poof, just suddenly appeared in front of
15 you, at least swerved in front of you or how did it happen?
16 A It appeared to slam on the brakes immediately.
17 Q Oh, so, you were both riding along together and
18 suddenly she jammed on the brakes and you didn’t have time to
19 react.
20 A Not together in front of each other, correct.
21 Q You don’t maintain enough distance between the car in
22 front of you in case it needs to stop that you would avoid
23 hitting it?
24 A I was, but it was an immediate stop.
25 Q If you were maintaining distance you maintain it.

92
1 Maintaining enough distance so that you could avoid hitting
2 something that suddenly stopped, then why did you hit the car?
3 A I can’t answer that question for you. I stopped
4 immediately when I saw the car brake.
5 Q In other words, you, it seems to me there’s a
6 contradictory thing here. You said earlier that you do
7 maintain enough distance to avoid hitting something that were
8 to stop and then –-
9 THE COURT: She never said that at all. She said I
10 was two car lengths behind the vehicle in front of her.
11 BY MR. TAYLOR:
12 Q I will go back. I already asked her this question, I
13 guess, I didn’t understand the answer or didn’t hear correctly.
14 When you’re driving, do you maintain enough distance between
15 you and the car in front of you that in case it stops for some
16 reason, you would avoid hitting it, yes or no?
19 BY MR. TAYLOR:
20 Q What?
21 THE COURT: Overruled. You can answer if you can.
23 THE COURT: Yes, she does.
24 BY MR. TAYLOR:
25 Q Okay, so, you do maintain enough distance and I will

93
1 repeat the other question because I, apparently, didn’t
2 understand it either. Since you maintain enough distance
3 between you and the car in front of you, generally speaking,
4 including in this occasion, why is it that when you stopped you
5 hit it.
6 A It was an immediate stop, nothing that you would
7 expect.
8 Q Okay, but you just said that you –
9 THE COURT: She’s answered the question. Next
10 question. You are not going to argue with her.
11 MR. TAYLOR: I have no further questions.
12 THE COURT: All right, you can step down, unless you
13 have questions.
15 THE COURT: I apologize. You can step down, thank
16 you.
19 MR. RYDER: That would be defendant’s case, Your
20 Honor.
21 THE COURT: All right, anything else, Mr. Taylor?
22 MR. TAYLOR: Yeah, I want to point out that the
23 defendant’s witness regarding the valuation of the car, by his
24 own admission said that –-
25 THE COURT: Do you have any other witnesses is what I

94
1 meant?
2 MR. TAYLOR: Oh, no, I’m sorry.
3 THE COURT: So, you want to –
4 MR. TAYLOR: No, I don’t.
5 THE COURT: All right, so, I will hear you in
6 argument. Go ahead.
7 CLOSING ARGUMENT BY JASON TAYLOR, PRO SE
8 ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF
9 MR. TAYLOR: Okay, the defendant’s witness, by his
10 own admission, said that the valuation of a car can be
11 increased if there’s a newer engine. None of the estimates
12 USAA supplied accommodated for that so they are wrong. All
13 these pictures that they showed, they had deductions and they
14 ultimately gave this number, but, I mean, that’s not the
15 problem. The problem is it doesn’t –-
16 THE COURT: Here’s what he said that a new engine
17 could be accountable for a higher value if it was a brand new
18 engine, if it was a remanufactured engine or if it was an old
19 engine, all of that could impact the value, but he said
20 there’s, you know, certainly, a new engine, condition of an
21 engine could have some value to the car.
22 But it would be important for him to know whether
23 that engine was brand new on that day of the accident, whether
24 it was a remanufactured engine that was put into the vehicle or
25 whether or not the vehicle had 50,000 plus miles on it. All of
95
1 that could be relevant is what he said.
2 And there’s no testimony before this Court that on
3 the day of this accident, June 15, 2018, that the engine in the
4 car was brand new. In fact, the evidence before me is that the
5 engine in that car had over 50,000 miles on it. So, if you
6 keep calling it a new engine, I think is misleading.
7 MR. TAYLOR: I apologize, yeah.
8 THE COURT: So, it’s an engine with 50,000 miles on
9 it and the witness who, based on his experience, that clearly
10 had no bearing on his estimate.
11 MR. TAYLOR: Okay, thank you for your excellent
12 recall of what he said. My main point was that -–
13 THE COURT: My excellent recall is helped by the note
14 taking I take. So, and I think the record will bear out that
15 what I just said is accurate.
16 MR. TAYLOR: I am impressed. What I was just trying
17 to point out is that it doesn’t try to, doesn’t make any
18 attempt to account for the fact that it has a newer engine in
19 it. It also, his statement that the Maryland inspection and
20 the VEIP inspection have no bearing on the cost is completely
21 contradicted by the pages in Exhibit 2 of mine, specifically,
22 when the word inspected is in there, the price is $3,000
23 higher. It completely invalidates almost everything he has
24 said, in my opinion, because it’s a factually incorrect
25 statement. So -–
96
1 THE COURT: What is it that you’re asking the Court
2 to do today, sir? What would you like me to do?
3 MR. TAYLOR: What I would like you to do is to
4 recognize where this court case came from.
5 THE COURT: It came from District Court.
6 MR. TAYLOR: Yes.
7 THE COURT: And your claim was denied there.
8 MR. TAYLOR: Yeah, it was denied and that’s why we’re
9 here, but what I would like you to do is to recognize that
10 because it came from here and not small claims court, does
11 assume that issuing of monetary reward or damage –-
12 THE COURT: But what are you -–
13 MR. TAYLOR: -- that, I’m a little slow, sorry, that
14 you should correct the offer of $2,658 which, by the way,
15 doesn’t include a $400 title fee and account for the engine
16 replacement and also the Maryland inspection and the VEIP
17 passing and correct it by $8,661 and award $11,319 minus the
18 404 something like that for the salvage value, bringing a total
19 of $10,869. That’s what you should award me.
20 THE COURT: All right. All right, I will hear you.
21 CLOSING ARGUMENT BY DAVID RYDER, ESQ.
22 ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT
23 MR. RYDER: Your Honor, I would ask that you enter
24 judgment in favor of the defendant. These vehicles were
25 traveling on Route 355 in the evening hours and a deer ran

97
1 across the road. An emergency situation was created.
2 The only evidence about what the defendant was doing
3 is she was traveling well below the speed limit behind the
4 plaintiff’s vehicle at a distance of two car lengths when the
5 plaintiff had to jam on her brakes because a deer came across
6 the road in between the intersections. Nothing that the
7 defendant saw before it happened, no indication of any reason
8 in the roadway why the defendant should be anticipating that
9 the plaintiff is going to jam on her brakes at that point.
10 I would suggest to you that she was confronted with
11 an emergency situation not of her making that she reacted as
12 best as she could, and, unfortunately, the two vehicles came
13 into contact, but that she acted as a reasonable person would
14 have under the situation that was presented to her. She was
15 traveling at an appropriate reduced speed. She was traveling
16 an appropriate distance behind. She did what she could do to
17 try to avoid the accident, but, unfortunately, that deer came
18 running across Route 355 in rush hour, causing cars to react.
19 I hope, Your Honor, doesn’t get to damages, but if
20 you do, Mr. Clark gave a very thorough explanation of how this
21 vehicle was valued using comparable vehicles where they
22 compared all of the options, the mileage, all of the relevant
23 factors to come to a baseline value that was adjusted for this
24 particular vehicle.
25 The only thing that has been offered contrary to that

98
1 is this auto appraisal group report which contains no
2 information other than the proclamation, I say this car is
3 worth $7,000 because I say this car is worth $7,000.
4 MR. TAYLOR: Objection.
5 MR. RYDER: There’s no comparables listed. There’s
6 no information that supports that opinion.
7 MR. TAYLOR: I object to that.
8 THE COURT: Sir, stop. This is closing argument and
9 you’re going to have another chance to argue, but it’s argument
10 and he’s arguing to me where he thinks, what he thinks the
11 evidence suggests and what he thinks the evidence proves.
12 MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Your Honor, okay.
13 THE COURT: All right, go ahead.
14 MR. RYDER: Your Honor, I would suggest to you that
15 the valuation of $2,548.24 is fair and reasonable based on the
16 evidence that was presented to you. I would note that that
17 figure is the appropriate amount if the title was signed over
18 by Mr. Taylor to USAA so that they have the vehicle in the
19 salvage.
20 If Mr. Taylor is inclined to keep the vehicle then
21 the $402 salvage fee reflected in Plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 1
22 should be deducted from that amount which would leave a
23 valuation of $1,246.24, but I hope, Your Honor, doesn’t get to
24 the damage part of this case because I do believe the defendant
25 was faced with an emergency situation. There’s no evidence

99
1 that she was doing anything inappropriate at the time of the
2 accident and that she reacted as a reasonable person would
3 under the situation. Thank you.
4 THE COURT: So, Mr. Taylor, let’s go back to you and
5 in your closing, your rebuttal closing, I would like you to
6 address why the actions of the defendant were negligent on that
7 day, taking into consideration what your witness, Ms. Zeltinger
8 testified to and the answers that she gave both to your
9 questions and to the Court’s questions and to defense counsel’s
10 questions.
11 Why is this, the actions of Ms. Ledoux on that day
12 negligent? If we consider and she’s unimpeached on this, that
13 she was traveling 25 miles per hour, that she was two car
14 lengths behind. All of that is unimpeached by you. You spent
15 your time on cross examination trying to get her to admit that
16 she didn’t leave enough car space, but that’s for me to decide,
17 the trier of fact, to decide.
18 So, if we take it as true that she was traveling 25
19 miles per hour which you did not object to or impeach, that she
20 was two car lengths behind your automobile driver by Ms.
21 Zeltinger and a deer ran out in an urban setting on Rockville
22 Pike at 5:00 in the afternoon, how and that your car was driven
23 by Ms. Zeltinger was immediately stopped. She immediately hit
24 the brakes. Ms. Zeltinger testified to that, that she saw the
25 deer right in front of her and she stopped.

100
1 MR. TAYLOR: All right.
2 THE COURT: So, if we accept that as fact because
3 both witnesses testified to that, that a deer crossed Rockville
4 Pike at 5:30 in the afternoon, how is what Ms. Ledoux did
5 negligent. Why would a reasonable person or how would a
6 reasonable driver have reacted differently?
7 MR. TAYLOR: Well, it’s interesting that you seem to
8 have taken a different opinion of the testimony by Ms. Ledoux.
9 THE COURT: Well, I am the trier of fact, and so, I
10 am the one, my recollection of the testimony controls.
11 REBUTTAL ARGUMENT BY JASON TAYLOR, PRO SE
12 ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF
13 MR. TAYLOR: All right, and I understand that and
14 what you decide will, you know, you have the power to do that.
15 Ms. Ledoux, in my opinion, from what I understand, she said
16 that she does maintain enough distance between cars so that if
17 that car in front of her had to make an emergency stop, she
18 would not hit it. She said that.
19 Now, then I asked her why if that’s true, she hit the
20 car and she said because it slammed, the car slammed on its
21 brakes. Those sentences are contradictory. She implies
22 that -–
23 THE COURT: Those sentences might be contradictory,
24 but do those sentences automatically mean, is it as a matter of
25 law –-
101
1 MR. TAYLOR: Yeah, they do because -–
2 THE COURT: -- that, okay.
3 MR. TAYLOR: -- she was obviously tailgating.
4 There’s no, there’s way too close. She should have had more
5 space. When I drive, I give enough distance –
6 THE COURT: It doesn’t matter what you do when you
7 drive.
8 MR. TAYLOR: Anybody who is not a negligent driver
9 and wants to drive safe has to assume that the person in front
10 of him might stop for any reason. Maybe someone has to go to
11 the bathroom.
12 THE COURT: So, is there -– somebody might have to go
13 to the bathroom?
14 MR. TAYLOR: Yeah, the person in front might have to
15 go to the bathroom, might stop the car. You don’t know. The
16 point is, you always, to be a safe driver –
17 THE COURT: So, why don’t you point me to case law
18 that say to me that because someone, under these facts,
19 collided with another car, it is automatic, by law, as a matter
20 of law, it is negligence.
21 MR. TAYLOR: Well, I actually do believe and I am
22 probably wrong, but I do believe based on what happened in an
23 accident I was involved in where somebody hit me from behind,
24 an insurance company did tell me that in that situation that’s
25 negligence, but –-
102
1 THE COURT: But they’re not here today and I am
2 asking you, who brought this case into this Court, to show me
3 where it says, in the State of Maryland that the mere fact that
4 two cars traveling along the road, the car in the position
5 number two, immediately behind car number one, in position
6 number one, because that car number two makes contact with the
7 car in front of it, that is as a matter of law, negligence.
8 MR. TAYLOR: I am missing that case law. I don’t
9 have the case law to show you, but I do think, based on your
10 experience that you actually would have that case law and I
11 think, in my –-
12 THE COURT: But you, sir, bear the burden of proof in
13 this case, not me.
14 MR. TAYLOR: Yeah and it’s juris prudence, I have
15 decided I am going to trust the judge because I’m sure, he or
16 she, is going, have seen cases like this before.
17 THE COURT: Well, see, based on facts that are before
18 me, I can’t imagine how a driver, anything that’s been shown in
19 this case, that this driver, Ms. Ledoux, I don’t think there’s
20 any evidence she acted unreasonable.
21 MR. TAYLOR: I disagree because she said –
22 THE COURT: Because the mere fact she hit your car,
23 that’s what you’re saying.
24 MR. TAYLOR: Oh, no, no, she, she said that she does
25 maintain enough distance between cars in case that the car

103
1 stops she would avoid hitting it, yet she hit the car. That’s
2 contradictory sentence. The only possible conclusion is that
3 she was tailgating and that’s negligent driving. There’s no
4 other conclusion you can come to. And, moreover, because her
5 testimony is self-contradictory, it discounts whether she even
6 was going 25 miles per hour. Maybe she was speeding. There’s
7 something –-
8 THE COURT: You didn’t discount that at all. It is a
9 matter of fact in this case and this record should be clear, I
10 accept as a matter of fact, that is uncontradicted by your
11 witness and by your cross examination that Ms. Ledoux was
12 traveling 25 miles per hour when this accident occurred.
13 MR. TAYLOR: Well, that’s because I don’t know how
14 fast she was driving. I don’t know how fast she was driving,
15 but I do think that there’s something wrong with her testimony
16 and I do think it’s clear negligence and I do think it’s
17 probably, although I haven’t gotten the case law, negligent if
18 somebody, generally speaking, hits the rear end of a person’s
19 car who stops for some strange reason. Especially, because I
20 was in a case exactly, the only at fault accident I was in was
21 in a case like that and in this situation it’s much, I mean,
22 you have very limited time, so, I won’t go into it.
23 THE COURT: I don’t have limited time. You’re not
24 going to –-
25 MR. TAYLOR: Well, one of the case law -–

104
1 THE COURT: -- be precluded from summarizing your
2 case as you see fit.
3 MR. TAYLOR: I was in an accident where I was driving
4 behind a car and that car in front of me at the bottom of a
5 hill suddenly turned out of its lane. Because it suddenly
6 turned out of the lane, I didn’t have view in front of me, of
7 the obstacle. What was the obstacle, it was a stopped car at
8 the bottom of a hill with a green light. I hit the car and
9 ended up paying some money to, well, I guess my insurance
10 company did, but it was a long time ago.
11 But the main thing is that they said, even though I
12 was a mechanic who was driving a car in the middle of the night
13 who was driving a test vehicle, just for testing whether the
14 car was really stalling, which it was and I didn’t have any
15 view, because I hit it at the back of the vehicle,
16 automatically, I am deemed negligent.
17 THE COURT: Well, you know, I can’t, that’s not
18 helpful to me. Here’s what’s helpful to me. Let’s just talk
19 in tort law about negligence and, you know, negligence involves
20 a duty of care, a breach of that duty of care, then some type
21 of causal connection between the breach and damages or harm and
22 then proximate cause of that harm and then damages.
23 So, I think where I am stuck and where I would like
24 you to kind of help me is this breach of a duty of care. So, a
25 driver on the street owes a duty of care to every other driver

105
1 on the street and I, so, to get to the next step, we all agree
2 to that, so, that’s step number one in negligence. Step number
3 two is a breach of that duty.
4 MR. TAYLOR: The breach was the probable tailgating
5 or speeding because there’s no other conclusion you can come up
6 with based on her testimony of her driving.
7 THE COURT: Well, the duty is acting as a reasonable
8 driver would act and if you can suggest -–
9 MR. TAYLOR: To tailgate is not reasonable.
10 THE COURT: And there’s no evidence in this Court –-
11 MR. TAYLOR: There is. Why did she hit?
12 THE COURT: Okay, all right, I think the record is
13 clear and I am not going to engage in an argument with you.
14 There is, I am just going to make a record on this. There is
15 no evidence in this case, and I find as a matter of fact, there
16 was no tailgating. The witness testified. The driver
17 testified. It was uncontradicted.
18 She was two car lengths behind the driver in front of
19 her traveling at 25 miles per hour and there’s no evidence that
20 that is tailgating and I don’t think any reasonable driver
21 whose been driving with the years of experience that your
22 witness testified she had been driving, 30 some years, would
23 suggest that traveling 25 miles per hour and allowing two car
24 lengths in front of each car is negligent and is in your mind,
25 in your words, excuse me, tailgating. There’s no evidence of

106
1 that before this Court.
2 MR. TAYLOR: Well, look at it from this perspective.
3 There was an obstacle that Ms. Zeltinger tried to stop and
4 avoid. She was able to take the time that it takes for a car
5 to stop to stop and avoid hitting it and she had success in
6 doing that. Now, the question is, if Ms. Zeltinger was going
7 at the same speed as Ms. Ledoux, why didn’t Ms. Ledoux’s car
8 stop at the same distance.
9 And if that had happened, there wouldn’t have been
10 any accident and because there was an accident that didn’t
11 happen, that contradiction. Therefore, there had to be a
12 difference in speed, difference in reaction time or something.
13 Something had to have caused Ms. Ledoux’s car not slow down in
14 the same amount of time.
15 THE COURT: I disagree with you.
16 MR. TAYLOR: And that’s negligence.
17 JUDGE'S RULING
18 THE COURT: I will just say that I think Maryland
19 case law on this is very clear that in a negligence action
20 arising from a rear end collision between the following vehicle
21 and the stopped leading vehicle, which are the exact facts of
22 this case, the plaintiff driver and that’s you, sir, or you’re
23 the plaintiff bringing this action, you bear the burden of
24 proof to show that the defendant, Ms. Ledoux in the following
25 vehicle was negligent.

107
1 And even if a rebuttal presumption of negligence had
2 arisen from the fact that the following driver had rear ended
3 that vehicle, you have to prove that the following vehicle, Ms.
4 Ledoux, in vehicle number two, was negligent. I am ready to
5 rule.
6 You have not carried your burden, sir. I am not even
7 addressing damages in this case because you have failed to
8 carry your burden of persuasion, your burden of proof that Ms.
9 Ledoux acted in a negligent manner under these facts and
10 circumstances that you’ve presented today.
11 MR. TAYLOR: Is that because -–
12 THE COURT: Judgment is entered for the defendant.
14 MS. LEDOUX: Thank you, Your Honor.
15 THE COURT: Thank you, you all.
16 THE BAILIFF: All rise. Court stands in recess.
17 (The proceedings were concluded.)
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
108
√ Digitally signed by Theresa E. Schaeffer
DIGITALLY SIGNED CERTIFICATE
DEPOSITION SERVICES, INC. hereby certifies that the
attached pages represent an accurate transcript of the
electronic sound recording of the proceedings in the Circuit
Court for Montgomery County in the matter of:
Civil No. 10064D
JASON TAYLOR
v.
JOANNE MARTINS NUNES LEDOUX
By:
_________________________
THERESA E. SCHAEFFER
Transcriber

10064D-12192019-N018148 Lawsuit Jason Arthur Taylor About Totaled BMW

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

10064D-12192019-N018148 Lawsuit Jason Arthur Taylor About Totaled BMW

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND

Rockville, Maryland December 19, 2019

DEPOSITION SERVICES, INC.

December 19, 2019

WHEREUPON, the proceedings in the above-entitled

BEFORE: THE HONORABLE DEBRA L. DWYER, JUDGE

FOR THE PLAINTIFF:

JASON TAYLOR, Pro se

FOR THE DEFENDANT:

DAVID F. RYDER, Esq.

WITNESSES DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS

For the Court:

For the Plaintiff:

For the Defendant:

EXHIBITS MARKED RECEIVED

For the Plaintiff:

For the Defendant:

Jason Taylor, Pro se 94

David Ryder, Esq. 96

Rebuttal for the Plaintiff:

Jason Taylor, Pro se 100

Judge's Ruling 106

2 THE BAILIFF: All rise.

3 THE COURT: Good morning, everyone, you can have a

4 seat. Thank you.

5 THE CLERK: Now calling District Court Appeal Matter

6 10064, Jason Taylor versus Joanne Ledoux.

7 THE COURT: All right, do you want to introduce

8 yourself for the record?

9 MR. TAYLOR: My name is Jason Taylor. I’m the

11 THE COURT: All right, good to see you.

12 MR. RYDER: Good morning, Your Honor, David Ryder on

13 behalf of the Ledoux’s and Joanne Ledoux is beside me to my

15 THE COURT: Good morning, good morning to you.

16 MS. LEDOUX: Good morning.

17 THE COURT: All right, so, we’re here for a denial of

18 appeal. This matter was originally tried in the District

19 Court. The plaintiff has appealed that ruling and it appears

20 to be a request for damages in tort following, it appears to be

21 an automobile accident. So, Mr. Taylor, do you want to stand

23 (The plaintiff was sworn.)

24 THE COURT: Mr. Taylor, are you going to be calling

25 any witnesses today?

1 MR. TAYLOR: I expect to call one witness, Rebecca

2 Zeltinger, the driver.

3 THE COURT: Is she here?

4 MR. TAYLOR: Yes.

5 THE COURT: All right, are you going to call her as

6 your first witness?

7 MR. TAYLOR: Yes.

8 THE COURT: Okay, fine. All right and, ma’am, are

10 Come on up here to the witness stand and if you’d step up into

14 called as a witness on behalf of the plaintiff, having been

15 first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:

16 THE COURT: You can have a seat. I am just going to

18 to speak into that microphone. Keep your voice up.

19 THE WITNESS: Okay.

22 Q So, if I can begin, in the first part of this what I

24 THE COURT: Well, ma’am, why don’t you state your

25 name for the record?

1 THE WITNESS: Rebecca Zeltinger.

2 THE COURT: You are going to have to spell your last

3 name for me.