Aronstamn v. Coffey
Decision Date | 10 July 1970 |
Docket Number | No. 416,416 |
Citation | 267 A.2d 741,259 Md. 47 |
Parties | Joseph H. ARONSTAMN, Infant, et al. v. Ivan Moore COFFEY. |
Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Joseph F. Lentz, Jr., Baltimore (Monfred, Lentz & Hooper, Baltimore, on the brief), for appellants.
A. Owen Hennegan, Towson, for appellee.
Argued before HAMMOND, C. J., and BARNES, McWILLIAMS, FINAN, SINGLEY, SMITH and DIGGES, JJ.
This is yet another case in which there was a collision between a child and an automobile in a public street. The appellants, Joseph Henry Aronstamn (five years and eleven months old at the time of the accident) and his father, were plaintiffs in the trial court. They here appeal in adverse verdict, complaining relative to the court's instructions. For procedural reasons, the appeal will be dismissed.
The accident in question took place on December 7, 1965, when a pickup truck operated by the appellee, Ivan Moore Coffey, was proceeding in a southerly direction on Hillsway Avenue in Baltimore County. The accident took place a short distance north of Mantle Street in an area where the speed limit is 25 miles per hour.
After a jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendant, plaintiff made a motion for a new trial. The motion was overruled. An appeal to this Court was entered a number of days later. As of the time of appeal no final judgment had been entered, although the clerk should have entered judgment. Therefore, the appeal must be dismissed, since the appeal was from a judgment nisi. Hawkins v. GMAC, 250 Md. 146, 148, 242 A.2d 120 (1968); Merlands Club v. Messall, 238 Md. 359, 208 A.2d 687 (1965); and Md., Del. & Va. Rwy. Co. v. Johnson, 129 Md. 412, 99 A. 600 (1916). To avoid the expense and dealy of another appeal, however, we shall indicate our views pursuant to the authority of Maryland Rule 885.
The trial judge (Raine, J.) gave a fair, full and comprehensive instruction to the jury. The plaintiffs requested numerous detailed instructions. On appeal it is urged that the trial judge erred in failing to grant approximately a dozen of those instructions.
Much of what Chief Judge Brune said for the Court in Lemons v. Chicken Processors, 223 Md. 362, 164 A.2d 703 (1960), is here relevant:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Houghton v. County Com'rs of Kent County
...of the law by the bar and judges is said to be Eastgate Associates v. Apper, 276 Md. 698, 350 A.2d 661 (1976); Aronstamn v. Coffey, 259 Md. 47, 267 A.2d 741 (1970); and Felger v. Nichols, 30 Md.App. 278, 352 A.2d 330 (1976), cited with approval in Impala Platinum v. Impala Sales, 283 Md. 29......
-
CSX Transp., Inc. v. Continental Ins. Co.
...therefore, the instructions given "were broad enough to permit counsel to fit proper arguments within them." Aronstamn v. Coffey, 259 Md. 47, 50, 267 A.2d 741, 743 (1970). They did not foreclose CSXT from making its common cause argument--all of the NIHL claims were caused by unprotected ex......
-
Molesworth v. Brandon
...Dover Elevator, supra, 334 Md. at 259, 638 A.2d 762; Eagle-Picher v. Balbos, 326 Md. 179, 233, 604 A.2d 445 (1992); Aronstamn v. Coffey, 259 Md. 47, 51, 267 A.2d 741 (1970). D We hold, therefore, that the trial court properly refused to instruct the jury that where the same person hires and......
-
Eagle-Picher Industries, Inc. v. Balbos
...in giving only a general instruction within which defendants could make their argument on this complex issue. See Aronstamn v. Coffey, 259 Md. 47, 51, 267 A.2d 741, 743 (1970) (not reversible error to refuse to give specific instructions where the "instructions as given were broad enough to......