Pedestrian Accident Complaint - Maine

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES (PEDESTRIAN COLLISION) — MAINE

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Caption
2. Parties, Jurisdiction, and Venue
3. General Factual Allegations
4. Count I — Negligence (Against Defendant Driver)
5. Count II — Negligence Per Se (Crosswalk / Right-of-Way / Due Care) (Against Defendant Driver)
6. Count III — Vicarious Liability / Negligent Entrustment (Against Defendant Owner)
7. Damages
8. Prayer for Relief
9. Demand for Trial by Jury
10. Signature and Service Blocks
11. Maine Practice Notes
12. Sources and References

1. CAPTION

STATE OF MAINE

[COUNTY NAME], ss.

SUPERIOR COURT

CIVIL ACTION

DOCKET NO. [________________________________]

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES (PEDESTRIAN COLLISION) AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

NOW COMES the Plaintiff, by and through undersigned counsel, and complaining of the Defendants alleges as follows:

2. PARTIES, JURISDICTION, AND VENUE

1. Plaintiff [PLAINTIFF NAME] ("Plaintiff") is an individual residing in [MUNICIPALITY], [COUNTY] County, Maine, who at all material times was lawfully traveling on foot as a pedestrian on the public ways of this State.

2. Defendant [DRIVER NAME] ("Defendant Driver") is an individual residing in [MUNICIPALITY / STATE] and may be served with process at [SERVICE ADDRESS].

3. Defendant [OWNER NAME] ("Defendant Owner") is [an individual residing in / a business entity organized under the laws of] [MUNICIPALITY / STATE] and was, at all relevant times, the titled owner of the motor vehicle operated by Defendant Driver.

4. This Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over this civil action pursuant to 4 M.R.S. § 105.

5. Venue is proper in this County under 14 M.R.S. § 501 et seq. because the Collision occurred in, and/or one or more parties reside in, [COUNTY] County, Maine.

3. GENERAL FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

6. On or about [__/__/____] at approximately [TIME], Plaintiff was lawfully crossing [ROADWAY] [within a marked crosswalk / within an unmarked crosswalk at the intersection / on a sidewalk] at or near its intersection with [CROSS-STREET] in [MUNICIPALITY], [COUNTY] County, Maine (the "Collision").

7. At all material times, Plaintiff was exercising due care for Plaintiff's own safety, was attentive to traffic, [was crossing with a favorable pedestrian "WALK" signal / was crossing within the marked crosswalk / had shown a visible intent to enter the marked crosswalk], and had the right-of-way.

8. At the same time and place, Defendant Driver was operating a [YEAR / MAKE / MODEL] motor vehicle owned by Defendant Owner, traveling [DIRECTION] on [ROADWAY].

9. Defendant Driver negligently [DESCRIBE CONDUCT — e.g., failed to yield the right-of-way to Plaintiff in the crosswalk; turned [left / right] across Plaintiff's path without yielding; failed to keep a proper lookout; was traveling at an excessive or imprudent speed; was distracted by a mobile device; failed to stop for the pedestrian signal; passed a vehicle that had stopped to allow Plaintiff to cross], causing Defendant Driver's vehicle to strike Plaintiff.

10. Although Plaintiff was plainly visible and was lawfully crossing with the right-of-way, Defendant Driver failed to detect, yield to, slow for, and avoid striking Plaintiff, and failed to give any warning.

11. As a pedestrian, Plaintiff was wholly unprotected by any vehicle structure, restraint system, or crumple zone, and the force of being struck by Defendant Driver's vehicle caused Plaintiff to suffer catastrophic injuries far more severe than those typically sustained by a vehicle occupant.

12. The [Maine State Police / [Local] Police Department / Sheriff's Office] investigated the Collision and [cited Defendant Driver for violation of 29-A M.R.S. § [SECTION] / determined Defendant Driver to be at fault].

13. As a direct and proximate result of the Collision, Plaintiff sustained serious and permanent bodily injuries, including [DESCRIBE INJURIES — e.g., multiple fractures, traumatic brain injury, spinal cord injury, internal organ damage, degloving and disfiguring lacerations], requiring emergency transport to [HOSPITAL] and extensive subsequent medical care.

4. COUNT I — NEGLIGENCE (Against Defendant Driver)

14. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates Paragraphs 1 through 13 as though fully set forth herein.

15. Defendant Driver owed Plaintiff a duty to exercise reasonable care in the operation of a motor vehicle, including the duty to keep a proper lookout for pedestrians, to yield the right-of-way to a pedestrian lawfully crossing in a crosswalk, to maintain a reasonable and prudent speed, to exercise due care to avoid colliding with a pedestrian, and to operate the vehicle in accordance with Maine law.

16. Defendant Driver breached that duty by, among other things:

• Failing to yield the right-of-way to Plaintiff, who was lawfully crossing within a crosswalk;
• Failing to keep a proper and careful lookout for pedestrians;
• Operating the vehicle at a speed greater than was reasonable and prudent under the conditions;
• Failing to exercise due care to avoid colliding with Plaintiff and failing to give warning of the vehicle's approach;
• Driving while distracted or inattentive;
• Failing to slow, stop, or take reasonable evasive action to avoid striking Plaintiff; and
• Otherwise failing to exercise the degree of care that an ordinarily prudent driver would have exercised under the same or similar circumstances.

17. Defendant Driver's negligence was the direct and proximate cause of the Collision and of Plaintiff's injuries and damages.

18. As a direct and proximate result, Plaintiff has sustained the damages described in Section 7 below.

5. COUNT II — NEGLIGENCE PER SE (CROSSWALK / RIGHT-OF-WAY / DUE CARE) (Against Defendant Driver)

19. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates Paragraphs 1 through 18 as though fully set forth herein.

20. Title 29-A of the Maine Revised Statutes imposes specific statutory duties on operators of motor vehicles for the protection of pedestrians lawfully using the public ways, including, as applicable to the manner of the Collision:

• 29-A M.R.S. § 2056(4) — when traffic-control devices are not in operation, an operator must yield the right-of-way to a pedestrian who is crossing within a marked crosswalk or to a pedestrian who has shown visible intent to enter the marked crosswalk;
• 29-A M.R.S. § 2056(3) — an operator shall yield the right-of-way to a pedestrian on a sidewalk;
• 29-A M.R.S. § 2056(7) — when a vehicle is stopped at an intersection or marked crosswalk to permit a pedestrian to cross, the operator of another vehicle approaching from the rear may not overtake and pass the stopped vehicle;
• 29-A M.R.S. § 2056(8) — notwithstanding any other provision, an operator of a vehicle shall exercise due care to avoid colliding with a pedestrian, shall give warning by sounding the horn when necessary, and shall exercise proper caution on observing a child or any obviously confused, incapacitated, or intoxicated person;
• 29-A M.R.S. § 2057 — an operator shall obey traffic-control devices, including pedestrian-control signals; and/or
• 29-A M.R.S. § 2075 — an operator shall not operate a vehicle at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the conditions.

21. These statutes establish a standard of conduct enacted for the protection of a class of persons that includes Plaintiff — pedestrians lawfully using the public ways — against the type of harm Plaintiff suffered.

22. Defendant Driver violated [CITE THE SPECIFIC SECTION(S) APPLICABLE], and was cited for [TRAFFIC CITATION, IF ANY]. Such violation constitutes negligence per se / evidence of negligence under Maine law, and was a direct and proximate cause of the Collision and of Plaintiff's injuries and damages.

6. COUNT III — VICARIOUS LIABILITY / NEGLIGENT ENTRUSTMENT (Against Defendant Owner)

23. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates Paragraphs 1 through 22 as though fully set forth herein.

24. Defendant Owner entrusted the subject vehicle to Defendant Driver when Defendant Owner knew or, in the exercise of reasonable care, should have known that Defendant Driver was an incompetent, inexperienced, unfit, or reckless operator likely to create an unreasonable risk of harm to others.

25. In the alternative, at the time of the Collision Defendant Driver was operating the vehicle within the course and scope of an agency or employment relationship with Defendant Owner, rendering Defendant Owner vicariously liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior.

26. Defendant Owner's negligent entrustment and/or vicarious liability was a direct and proximate cause of Plaintiff's injuries and damages, for which Defendant Owner is liable.

7. DAMAGES

27. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' negligence, Plaintiff has suffered, and will continue to suffer, the following damages:

• Economic damages: past and future medical, hospital, surgical, rehabilitative, pharmaceutical, and related expenses; future medical and life-care costs; past lost wages; and future lost earnings and diminished earning capacity.
• Non-economic damages: past and future physical pain and suffering; mental anguish; permanent physical impairment; disfigurement and scarring; and loss of enjoyment of life.

28. Punitive damages. To the extent the evidence establishes by clear and convincing proof that Defendant Driver acted with express or implied malice, Plaintiff seeks punitive damages as permitted under Maine common law. See Tuttle v. Raymond, 494 A.2d 1353 (Me. 1985).

8. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully demands judgment against Defendants, jointly and severally to the extent permitted by law, as follows:

• A. For compensatory economic and non-economic damages in an amount to be determined by the jury;
• B. For punitive damages as permitted by Maine law;
• C. For pre-judgment and post-judgment interest as allowed by 14 M.R.S. § 1602-B and § 1602-C;
• D. For the costs of this action; and
• E. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

9. DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY

Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable as a matter of right pursuant to Me. R. Civ. P. 38.

10. SIGNATURE AND SERVICE BLOCKS

Dated: [__/__/____]

Respectfully submitted,

[LAW FIRM NAME]

By: [________________________________]

[ATTORNEY NAME], Maine Bar No. [________]

Counsel for Plaintiff

[STREET ADDRESS]

[CITY, STATE ZIP]

Telephone: [NUMBER]

Email: [EMAIL]

11. MAINE PRACTICE NOTES

• Statute of limitations. Maine has an unusually long SIX-year limitation for civil actions, including personal injury, under 14 M.R.S. § 752. Confirm accrual and any tolling (e.g., minority under 14 M.R.S. § 853).
• Comparative negligence (§ 156) — central in a pedestrian case. A claimant "found by the jury to be equally at fault" may not recover. The statute measures the claimant's share in responsibility for the damage and begins with fault of an "other person or persons"; do not substitute a singular-defendant comparison in a multiparty case. Where comparative fault is at issue, the jury must find total damages and reduce them to the extent just and equitable, returning both figures.
• Crosswalk / right-of-way framework. 29-A M.R.S. § 2056 governs the respective duties of drivers and pedestrians. When traffic-control devices are not operating, the driver must yield to a pedestrian in (or showing visible intent to enter) a marked crosswalk; a pedestrian crossing elsewhere generally must yield; and in all events the driver owes an overriding duty of due care to avoid colliding with a pedestrian. Identify the precise crossing geometry early.
• Pleading standard. Maine follows notice pleading under Me. R. Civ. P. 8(a); plead the elements of each claim with sufficient supporting facts to withstand a Rule 12(b)(6) motion.
• Punitive damages. Punitive damages require malice proven by clear and convincing evidence (Tuttle v. Raymond); they are not available for ordinary negligence.
• Service of process. Service is governed by Me. R. Civ. P. 4; out-of-state defendants may be served under Maine's long-arm statute, 14 M.R.S. § 704-A.
• Filing / case management. Confirm current Maine Judicial Branch electronic-filing requirements and any track-assignment or scheduling-order obligations in the Superior Court of the relevant county.

12. SOURCES AND REFERENCES

• 14 M.R.S. § 752 (six-year statute of limitations) — https://legislature.maine.gov/statutes/14/title14sec752.html
• 14 M.R.S. § 156 (comparative negligence) — https://legislature.maine.gov/statutes/14/title14sec156.html
• 4 M.R.S. § 105 (Superior Court jurisdiction)
• 14 M.R.S. § 501 et seq. (venue)
• 29-A M.R.S. § 2056 (pedestrians; crosswalk yield; due care) — https://legislature.maine.gov/statutes/29-A/title29-Asec2056.html
• 29-A M.R.S. § 2057 (obedience to traffic-control / pedestrian signals)
• 29-A M.R.S. §§ 2074, 2075 (following too closely; speed)
• 24-A M.R.S. § 2902 (uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage)
• Maine Rules of Civil Procedure (Rules 4, 8, 38) — https://www.courts.maine.gov/

Disclaimer: This template is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. An attorney licensed in Maine must review and customize this document before filing. Laws, citations, and court rules change frequently; verify all authorities before use.