Skip to main content
Skip to main content

Zajac v. Jordan

D. Md.March 31, 2023No. 8:22-cv-01620
Plaintiff WinJordan$7,800 awarded

Case Details

Nature of Suit
446 Civil Rights: Americans with Disabilities - Other
Status
Unknown
Procedural Posture
jury verdict
Circuit
4th Circuit

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Outcome

Plaintiff prevailed on her negligence claim arising from a motor vehicle collision. The trial court properly directed a verdict on liability against the defendant truck driver, and the jury awarded $7,800 in damages for plaintiff's injuries and permanent disability.

What This Ruling Means

**What Happened** This case involved a car accident between an employee named Zajac and a truck driver working for Jordan company. Zajac was injured in the collision and sued both the truck driver and the employer, claiming the driver was negligent (careless) while operating the company vehicle. The case went to trial to determine who was at fault and what compensation Zajac deserved for her injuries. **What the Court Decided** The court ruled in favor of Zajac. The judge determined that the truck driver was clearly at fault for the accident and directed the jury to find the driver liable. The jury then awarded Zajac $7,800 in damages to compensate her for her injuries and permanent disability resulting from the crash. **Why This Matters for Workers** This ruling reinforces that employers can be held responsible when their employees cause accidents while driving company vehicles or performing work duties. For workers who are injured by negligent drivers during work-related activities, this case shows that courts will hold both the driver and their employer accountable. Workers injured in similar situations may be entitled to compensation for medical expenses, lost wages, and permanent disabilities caused by workplace-related vehicle accidents.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Similar Rulings

Jordan
Conn. App. Ct.Nov 2025

The defendant appealed to this court from the trial court's judgments finding him in violation of probation in two criminal dockets and revoking his probation. The defendant, a passenger in a motor vehicle owned and driven by a friend, was arrested and charged with interfering with a police officer pursuant to statute (§ 53a-167a) for his conduct during a motor vehicle stop and for possession of narcotics with intent to sell and criminal possession of a firearm for items found in a backpack in the backseat of the vehicle. The court determined that the defendant constructively possessed the con- traband in the backpack and had interfered with the lawful duties of a police officer, all of which constituted conduct that violated the conditions of the defendant's probation. The defendant claimed that there was insufficient evidence for the court to find that he had violated the conditions of his probation. Held: The trial court's determination that the state had produced sufficient evi- dence that the defendant had violated § 53a-167a and, thus a condition of his probation, was not clearly erroneous, as the court's finding that the defendant's conduct in failing to comply with the police officers' commands and in resisting their efforts to place him in handcuffs had hampered the activities of the police in the performance of their duties was supported by the record evidence. The trial court erred in determining that the defendant was in constructive possession of the illegal drugs or the firearm that were found in the vehicle, as there was nothing in the record to support the finding that the defendant exercised dominion and control over the contraband. This court concluded that a remand for resentencing was appropriate in light of the trial court's statements at the outset of the dispositional phase of the probation revocation hearing that the defendant had previously been convicted for offenses involving the possession and sale of illegal drugs and that it had rejecte

Remanded
Riley
D.N.M.Jun 2025
Dismissed
Riley
D.N.M.May 2025
Dismissed
Josephs
D. Md.Jan 2026
Unknown
Milton
D. Md.Dec 2025
Dismissed

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.