SIGNIFICANT CASE SUMMARIES

Maryland Case Summary

Smith v. Sheehan
Maryland Appellate Court
No. 2417, Sept. Term, 2023

Decided: August 27, 2025

In a two-impact collision, pre-impact fright applies to the second impact as well, so long as the fear claimed is capable of objective determination.

Background

On January 31, 2021, while heavy snow was coming down, Plaintiff drove north on I-83 heading to York, PA. Visibility was poor, as all Plaintiff could see through her rearview mirror was white. Suddenly, Plaintiff was struck from behind by Defendant. Plaintiff felt the impact and her car started to spin until it ultimately crashed into the guardrail. Plaintiff lost consciousness and sustained soft tissue injuries. Plaintiff filed suit and the case went to trial in February 2024. Defendant conceded liability, thus the only issue submitted to the jury was damages.

Plaintiff testified at trial that as her vehicle started spinning, she was screaming, scared, had no control of the car, began to pray, and thought that she was going to die. Plaintiff also testified that she did not know if she would smash into oncoming traffic or fall into a ditch. As a result, at the close of trial, Plaintiff requested a pre-impact fright jury instruction regarding the fear she experienced after the initial impact and before she collided with the guardrail. The Trial Court denied her request on the grounds the pre-impact fright applied only to the initial collision. The Trial Court instructed the jury on basic compensatory and noneconomic damages, only. Plaintiff appealed.

Holding

The Appellate Court of Maryland held that nothing in the Restatement of Torts, nor the Maryland Supreme Court cases considering pre-impact fright, limits the fright the victim suffers to a single impact. Rather, a trial court should instruct the jury on pre-impact fright damages, so long as the Plaintiff establishes that: (1) their distress was capable of objective determination; (2) the distress occurred within the legitimate window of mental anxiety; and (3) the Defendant’s negligence proximately caused Plaintiff’s emotional distress. Here, Plaintiff’s testimony about her fear, her bodily injuries, and her attempts to avoid a collision could allow a juror to infer that she was afraid of the impending crash into the guardrail, and thus Plaintiff’s distress was capable of objective determination. The distress occurred during a cognizable window of anxiety (as the car was spinning into the guardrail). Defendant conceded liability, the pre-impact fright prongs were therefore satisfied. Accordingly, the Appellate Court of Maryland held that the Trial Court erred in holding that pre-impact fright applied only to the initial collision. The Appellate Court reversed and remanded.

Questions about this case can be directed to Alex Mitchell at (443) 641-0563 or amitchell@tthlaw.com.