Christman v. Weil
| Decision Date | 02 November 1950 |
| Docket Number | 3. |
| Citation | 76 A.2d 144,196 Md. 207 |
| Parties | CHRISTMAN v. WEIL. |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Edward D. Storm, Frederick, for appellant.
Robert E Clapp, Jr., Frederick (Alton Y. Bennett, Frederick, on the brief), for appellee.
Before MARBURY, C J., and DELAPLAINE, COLLINS, HENDERSON and MARKELL, JJ.
Defendant appeals from a judgment against him entered by the trial court sitting without a jury, for damages to the appellee's gasoline tank truck. The sole question involved is whether the appellee is guilty of contributory negligence either as a matter of law, or in fact.
Appellant was driving his car along a public highway in Frederick County. He stopped just off the highway to permit Mrs. Huber, an employee, to take the wheel. A tractor-trailer milk truck was behind him, and, after going over a slight grade, or knoll, the driver of the milk truck saw the change of drivers, and slowed down to enable appellant's car to proceed under its new driver, and to keep ahead of his milk truck. Mrs. Huber started back into the highway in low gear, but did not release the emergency brake which had been put on by the appellant when he stopped. When she put the car in second gear, the emergency brake held it, so that it came to a sudden stop. The driver of the milk truck immediately applied his brakes, and managed to stop without hitting the appellant's car.
Behind the milk truck was appellee's cab-over-engine gasoline tank truck carrying a full load of gasoline and other fluid. This truck ran into the rear of the milk truck, and was damaged, and the suit was brought by the appellee against the appellant for this damage. It is not contended by the appellant that he was not negligent, but the contention is made that if the appellee's chauffeur had been using due care, he would have been able to stop, and that the proximate cause of the accident was his failure to keep at a safe distance behind the milk truck.
The appellant invokes the provisions of Article 66 1/2, Section 169, 1947 Supplement, Annotated Code, page 1202. This section is as follows:
'169. (Following Too Closely.) (a) The driver of a motor vehicle shall not follow another vehicle more closely than is reasonable and prudent, having due regard for the speed of such vehicles and the traffic upon and the condition of the highway.
The testimony of appellee's chauffeur is that he was going along at ordinary speed about 30 to 35 miles an hour and 'all of a sudden this truck raised up in front of me and before I gathered myself up ran into it'. He saw no signal from the truck ahead, that it was going to stop, and did not see appellant's car at all, as this was apparently obscured by the milk truck. As soon as he observed the truck raising up in front of him, he 'started to make preparation to stop'. He put on all the brakes he had, but this did not suffice. He testified he was 40 to 50 feet back of the milk truck, that he drives at that distance generally behind another truck, and that, in his opinion, is a safe distance. He was 55 years old and had been driving automobiles since he was 16. The appellant contends that this testimony shows that appellee's chauffeur was not keeping a proper lookout, since he said he noticed nothing along the side of the road and did not look on the side, and that he did not notice the milk truck slow down. He also testified that he never knew anything about the provisions of Section 169(b).
The General Assembly of 1941 authorized the appointment of a commission to revise the motor vehicle laws, Acts of 1941, Chapter 724. This commission made a report with a proposed new act which it said was modeled largely on the Uniform Motor Vehicle Law, with such changes as it thought might be advisable. The General Assembly of 1943 passed the recommended statute, with some changes, as Chapter 1007 of the Acts of 1943, and Section 169, as quoted above, is the product of that act. Subsection (b) is slightly different from the Uniform Act. The latter, see Uniform Motor Vehicle Acts, Section 31(b), 11 Uniform Laws Annotated, reads as follows: 'The driver of any motor truck when travelling upon a highway outside of a business or residence district shall not follow another motor truck within one hundred feet, but this shall not be construed to prevent one motor truck from overtaking and passing another.'
It will be noted that the Maryland statute makes a distance of 150 feet instead of 100, and adds the provision '* * * nor shall the same apply upon any lane specially designated for use by...
To continue reading
Request your trial