Case Background
This civil case arose from a two-vehicle collision that took place in the District of Columbia on March 11, 2023. Joseph Wade, the Plaintiff, filed a complaint in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, Civil Division, on October 21, 2024, against Naeem Wynn, the Defendant. Both men lived in Washington, D.C. at the time of the crash. The case received docket number 2024-CAB-006652 and went before Judge Leslie A. Meek for trial.
Cause
According to the complaint, Joseph Wade drove his 1997 burgundy Chevrolet Astro along Kansas Avenue NW in Washington, D.C. on Saturday, March 11, 2023. Wade said he traveled within the posted speed limit and obeyed all traffic rules as he approached the intersection at Ingraham Street. He claimed that Naeem Wynn drove along Ingraham Street and failed to stop at the stop sign controlling that intersection. Wade alleged that Wynn entered the intersection without warning and slammed into his vehicle, causing what he described as a violent collision.
Injury
Wade claimed the crash totally destroyed his car and left him with serious, life-threatening injuries. He stated that an ambulance rushed him to Howard University Hospital in Washington, D.C., where doctors treated him as a trauma patient. Wade further claimed that the injuries became permanent and continued to affect him after the crash. He described ongoing severe pain, sleepless nights, anxiety, stress, and a fear of driving that lingered after the incident. Wade also said he lost his vehicle permanently and lost income along with his means of earning a livelihood.
Damages Sought
Wade brought two counts against Wynn. Under Count One for negligence, Wade requested compensatory damages above $75,000. Under Count Two for gross negligence, he requested damages above $3.5 million. He also asked the Court to award any further relief it deemed just and proper. Wade demanded a jury trial on all claims.
Key Arguments and Proceedings
Legal Representation
Plaintiff: Joseph Wade
· Counsel for Plaintiff: Antoini M. Jones
Defendant: Naeem Wynn
· Counsel for Defendant: Michael Merod
Key Arguments or Remarks by Counsel
Through his attorney, Wade argued that Wynn carried a clear duty to stop at the stop sign and to wait until it became safe to proceed. Wade's counsel framed the case as a straightforward failure to obey a basic traffic control device, and pointed to that failure as the single direct cause of the crash and the resulting injuries. Counsel for Wade pushed the case beyond simple negligence by adding a count for gross negligence, arguing that running a stop sign and striking another car amounted to reckless conduct rather than a mere lapse in attention.
Wynn's attorney, Michael Merod, filed an answer to the complaint on December 12, 2024. The answer denied nearly every substantive allegation in the complaint. Merod stated that Wynn lacked personal knowledge of many of Wade's claims and therefore denied them on that basis. He also denied outright the allegations of negligent driving, the claim that Wynn ran the stop sign, and the assertion that Wynn caused the collision. The answer also requested a jury trial of eight people.
Claims
Wade brought two counts against Wynn. The first count alleged ordinary negligence, focused on Wynn's claimed failure to stop at the stop sign at Kansas Avenue and Ingraham Street. The second count alleged gross negligence and described Wynn's conduct as reckless rather than merely careless. Both counts rested on the same set of facts, and both claimed that Wynn's driving caused the destruction of Wade's car and the permanent injuries Wade described in his filing. Wade asked for compensatory damages above $75,000 on the negligence count and damages above $3.5 million on the gross negligence count.
Defense
Wynn's defense raised ten separate defenses in the answer. The first defense argued that the complaint failed to state a cause of action against Wynn under which the Court could grant relief. The second defense denied all allegations of negligence and improper conduct and denied any allegations the answer did not specifically address. The remaining defenses reserved Wynn's right to raise additional arguments as discovery moved forward. Those reserved defenses included contributory negligence, assumption of risk, the statute of limitations, unavoidable accident, fault of a third party not named in the lawsuit, lack of a causal link between the collision and Wade's claimed injuries, and a challenge to the nature and extent of the injuries Wade described. The tenth defense reserved the right to add other defenses that discovery might uncover.
Jury Verdict
The jury delivered its verdict on May 19, 2026, before Associate Judge Leslie A. Meek. The verdict form asked two questions. The first question asked the jury whether it found that the Defendant acted negligently in the case. The jury answered "No" to that question. The verdict form instructed the jurors to stop and answer no further questions if they marked "No" on question one, so the jury did not address the second question about whether the Plaintiff acted negligently. The foreperson signed the verdict form on May 19, 2026, and the Court filed it the same day.
On the same date, the Court entered judgment in favor of Naeem Wynn and against Joseph Wade in the amount of $0.00. The verdict cleared Naeem Wynn of liability for the March 11, 2023, collision. Because the jury found no negligence on Wynn's part, Joseph Wade did not recover any of the damages he sought, including the compensatory damages above $75,000 requested under his negligence claim and the damages above $3.5 million requested under his gross negligence claim.
Court documents are available upon request at [email protected]
