Ryan v. Thurston

Decision Date02 December 1975
Docket NumberNo. 82,82
Citation276 Md. 390,347 A.2d 834
PartiesEugene C. RYAN v. Ruth W. THURSTON, etc., et al.
CourtMaryland Court of Appeals

John H. Urner, Hagerstown, (William P. Nairn and Byron, Moylan & Urner, Hagerstown, on the brief), for appellant.

No brief filed on behalf of appellees.

Argued before MURPHY, C. J., and SINGLEY, SMITH, DIGGES, LEVINE, ELDRIDGE and O'DONNELL, JJ.

MURPHY, Chief Judge.

We granted certiorari in this case to consider the scope of appellate review applicable to appeals taken on the record from the District Court of Maryland to the circuit courts of the counties or, in cases arising in Baltimore City, to the Baltimore City Court (civil appeals) and the Criminal Court of Baltimore (criminal appeals).

Maryland Rule 1386 governs the scope of review in such cases and provides that the reviewing court:

'will review the case upon both the law and the evidence, but the judgment of the lower court (the District Court) will not be set aside on the evidence unless clearly erroneous and due regard will be given to the opportunity of the lower court to judge the credibility of the witnesses.'

The quoted language of Rule 1386 is identical to that contained in Maryland Rules 886 and 1086 which govern, respectively, the scope of appellate review in cases before the Court of Appeals and the Court of Special Appeals. These rules have been consistently interpreted to require that appellate courts accept and be bound by findings of fact of the lower court unless they are clearly erroneous. Hartford Sod Co. v. Randall Dev. Corp., 264 Md. 214, 285 A.2d 656 (1972); Baldi Constr. Eng'r, Inc. v. Wheel Awhile, Inc., 263 Md. 670, 284 A.2d 248 (1971); Gosman v. Gosman, 19 Md.App. 66, 309 A.2d 34 (1973). The appellate court must consider evidence produced at the trial in a light most favorable to the prevailing party and if substantial evidence was presented to support the trial court's determination, it is not clearly erroneous and cannot be disturbed. Delmarva Drill Co. v. Tuckahoe, 268 Md. 417, 302 A.2d 37 (1973); A. S. Abell Co. v. Skeen, 265 Md. 53, 288 A.2d 596 (1972); Jacober v. High Hill Realty, Inc., 22 Md.App. 115, 321 A.2d 838 (1974). The trial court is not only the judge of a witness' credibility, but is also the judge of the weight to be attached to the evidence. Knowles v. Binford, 268 Md. 2, 298 A.2d 862 (1973); Ritter v. Danbury, 15 Md.App. 309, 290 A.2d 173 (1972). It is thus plain that the appellate court should not substitute its judgment for that of the trial court on its findings of fact but will only determine whether those findings are clearly erroneous in light of the total evidence. Boettcher v. Van Lill, 263 Md. 113, 282 A.2d 122 (1971); Colburn v Colburn, 15 Md.App. 503, 292 A.2d 121 (1972).

We hold that the scope of review of an appeal taken on the record from the District Court is the same as that applicable under Rules 886 and 1086, and that the cases applying these rules are controlling authority governing the interpretation of the scope of appellate review under Rule 1386.

In the case now before us undisputed evidence (including that of a disinterested eyewitness) was adduced at the trial before District Court Judge J. Louis Boublitz that the appellant Ryan was driving his vehicle at approximately 15 miles per hour along a narrow street in Hagerstown when another vehicle, moving at a high rate of speed, suddenly entered the street from an intersecting alley without stopping. The evidence showed that the other vehicle, upon entering the street, passed to the immediate rear of Ryan's automobile and that to avoid a collision Ryan steered his automobile to the left of the narrow street, ran over a curb and struck the appellees' garage which was situated approximately 15 feet from the curbline. Judge Boublitz concluded from the evidence that because of the emergence of the other vehicle from the alley Ryan was 'faced with a sudden emergency'; that 'he made a choice; he had to make a choice quick whether to speed up, whether to slow, try to stop, turn to the right or turn to the left'; and that Ryan's decision 'to turn to the left . . . would be the natural reaction with the car coming from the right in order to try to get out of the way.' The district judge held that Ryan was not negligent in the circumstances and denied the appellees' claim for damages to the garage and the automobile therein garaged.

On appeal to the Circuit Court for Washington County taken on the record made in the District Court, the circuit court said that because the 'phantom' vehicle passed to the rear of Ryan's automobile, it was 'hard . . . to understand why . . . (Ryan) was faced with any real emergency since he obviously could have proceeded forward, or he could have skidded to a stop in the street, based on his testimony and that of the eyewitness, without colliding with anything.' In reversing the judgment of the District Court, and awarding damages to the appellees, the circuit court held that Ryan 'either failed to keep his car under proper control or failed to keep a proper lookout, or both, and therefore he was negligent when he damaged the garage and the other automobile.'

We said in Warnke v. Essex, 217 Md. 183, 186-87, 141 A.2d 728, 729 (1958):

'Generally, the operator of an automobile who suddenly finds himself in a...

To continue reading

Request your trial
107 cases
  • Walker v. State
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • February 10, 1999
    ...When the factual findings of the trial court are supported by substantial evidence, they are not clearly erroneous. Ryan v. Thurston, 276 Md. 390, 392, 347 A.2d 834 (1975); Sea Watch Stores Ltd. Liab. Co. v. Council of Unit Owners of Sea Watch Condominium, 115 Md.App. 5, 31, 691 A.2d 750, c......
  • Oliver v. Hays
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • September 1, 1997
    ...When the trial court's findings are supported by substantial evidence, the findings are not clearly erroneous. Ryan v. Thurston, 276 Md. 390, 392, 347 A.2d 834 (1975); Sea Watch Stores Ltd. Liab. Co. v. Council of Unit Owners, 115 Md.App. 5, 31, 691 A.2d 750, cert. dismissed, 347 Md. 622, 7......
  • Innerbichler v. Innerbichler
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • September 1, 1999
    ...evidence"). When the trial court's findings are supported by substantial evidence, the findings are not clearly erroneous. Ryan v. Thurston, 276 Md. 390, 392 (1975); Sea Watch Stores Ltd. Liab. Co. v. Council of Unit Owners of Sea Watch Condominium, 115 Md. App. 5, 31, cert. dismissed, 347 ......
  • Clickner v. Magothy River Ass'n, Inc.
    • United States
    • Maryland Court of Appeals
    • January 20, 2012
    ...was presented to support the trial court's determination, it is not clearly erroneous and cannot be disturbed.” Ryan v. Thurston, 276 Md. 390, 392, 347 A.2d 834, 835–36 (1975) (citations omitted); $3,417.46 U.S. Money, 326 Md. at 149, 604 A.2d at 67. Questions of law, however, require our n......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT