

A Fairfax County police checkpoint, 2006. (Rich Lipski/The Washington Post)

Paragraph 10. “At the time of the collision, Defendant was going 85 miles per hour.”

Paragraph 12. “At the time of the collision, Defendant was having sex with a female.”

Paragraph13. “At the time of the collision, Defendant was driving admittedly drunk.”

Paragraph 14. “At the time of the accident, Defendant was partially or totally in the backseat of the car.”

Wait, WHA? 85 miles per hour? The backseat? And what happened to paragraph 11?

Records show the defendant, from Woodbridge, was convicted in Fairfax district court of drunken driving near Telegraph Road in May 2010. But now he denies he was driving. (What?) He was coming from his 21st birthday party in Baltimore, court records state. The woman involved has been dismissed from the case. There was someone ELSE in the car too, and HE denies driving as well.

The defendant’s lawyer, Frank Prior, said there was “no statement by anyone that they were driving on the Beltway having sex” and “no facts on it.” The plaintiff, a 28-year-old cab driver, is seeking $75,000 in damages and is represented by Douglas R. Stevens, who declined to comment beyond his court filings.

But Stevens sought punitive damages against the defendant and the friend, arguing in a pleading that “having sex at 85 miles per hour while drunk on a freeway is willful and wanton negligence.” A Fairfax judge threw out the punitive damages claim.

The case is set for trial next week.