Earl v. Anchor Pontiac Buick, Inc.

• Decision Date: 12 May 1967
• Docket Number: No. 358,358
• Citation: 229 A.2d 412,246 Md. 653
• Parties: George F. EARL, Sr., v. ANCHOR PONTIAC BUICK, INC., et al.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

Page 653

246 Md. 653

229 A.2d 412

George F. EARL, Sr., v. ANCHOR PONTIAC BUICK, INC., et al.

No. 358.

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

May 12, 1967.

Certiorari Denied May 16, 1967.

Melvin J. Sykes, Baltimore (Paul Berman and A. Harold DuBois, Baltimore, Sanford J. Rosen, member of the Connecticut Bar, on the brief), for appellant.

William T. Russell, Jr., Elkton (Leonard H. Lockhart and Baker & Lockhart, Elkton, on the brief), for appellees.

Before HAMMOND, C. J., and HORNEY, OPPENHEIMER, BARNES, and FINAN, JJ.

OPPENHEIMER, Judge.

Litigation which began as an attack upon the rule of lex loci delicti has become transmuted into a question of whether the case should be remanded because of developments subsequent to the proper entry of a final judgment.

The appellant filed suit in the Circuit Court for Cecil County to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by him on or about February 5, 1964, when the appellees' vehicle, in which the appellant was a passenger, was involved in an accident in the State of Delaware. The appellant's declaration alleges a cause of action in the usual Maryland form for negligent personal injury by automobile, and states that the appellant was a 'guest passenger'. There are no allegations as to the nature of the trip. It is undisputed that the declaration states a good cause of action under the Maryland law. The appellees demurred to the declaration in reliance upon the Delaware Guest Statute, which, on its face, precludes recovery on the bare allegations of the declaration. Counsel agree that, at the hearing on the demurrer, the appellant acquiesced in the order of the court below sustaining the demurrer without leave to amend so that this Court would have a record on which to re-examine the lex loci delicti rule. At no time was the lower court requested to allow amendments to the declaration. The order below was entered on June 24, 1966, and this appeal was taken within thirty days thereafter.

After the order below, the appellant employed additional counsel (the same counsel who argued the appeal before this Court). As a result of his research into the Delaware law, another declaration was filed on behalf of the appellant in the Circuit Court for Cecil County, on November 9, 1966, while this appeal was pending. At the oral argument before us, copies of the new declaration were filed in the proceedings, without objection. In brief, the new declaration alleges that Anchor Pontiac Buick, Inc., a Maryland corporation, and its salesman, James G. Crouse, a Maryland resident (the appellees here and the defendants in the new action), were transporting the appellant (also a resident of this State) for their benefit as well as his, in the successful endeavor to make a sale of an automobile, and that the trip was an essential element in consummating the sale. The appellant contends that under these facts, details of which are set forth in the new declaration, under the decisions of the Delaware courts, the Delaware Guest Statute does not apply.

There was another development after the appeal was entered. On November 11, 1966, we filed our opinion in White v. King, 244 Md. 348, 223 A.2d 763 (1966). That case involved the Michigan Guest Statute. In our opinion, we summarized the weighty criticisms which have been made of the lex loci delicti rule which has been followed in this State. We referred to the new rule which had been rpoposed in a tentative draft of Restatement, Second, Conflict of Laws § 379, and the adoption of the proposed new rule by several highly respected courts. We considered also the reasons for the retention of the old rule, and pointed out that the proposed Restatement was not yet in final form and that, in several of the jurisdictions which have discarded lex loci delicti, the rule which is to take its place seems still in the process or development. We decided that, in the present state of the law, we would leave any change in the established doctrine to the Legislature.

The appellant, while disagreeing with our conclusion in White, recognizes that it negates the legal theory on which his original case was brought. He now asks that the case should be remanded under Maryland Rule 871 a to give him an opportunity to apply for leave to amend his declaration in accordance with the facts set forth in his new action, or, in the alternative, that the affirmance of the judgment below be without prejudice to the prosecution of the new action.

There is no question of the correctness of the action of the court below in sustaining the demurrer without leave to amend. Under the Maryland law of lex loci delicti as it was at the time of the court's ruling and as it is now, the Delaware law applied; no facts were alleged in the original declaration which could serve as a basis for the argument that the Delaware Guest Statute was not applicable under the decisions of the Delaware courts. Maryland Rule 320 d 1(b) and our decisions thereunder (see Town of Somerset v. Montgomery County Bd. of Apps., 245 Md. 52, 61-62, 225 A.2d 294 (1966), and cases cited therein) emphasize the principle that leave to amend shall be freely granted in order to promote justice, but in this case the appellant did not ask leave to amend either before or after the demurrer was sustained.

Maryland Rule 871 a (the Rule) reads as follows:

'If it shall appear to this Court that the substantial merits of a case will not be determined by affirming, reversing or modifying the judgment from which the appeal was taken, or that the purposes of justice will be advanced by permitting further proceedings in the cause either through amendment of the pleadings, introduction of additional evidence, making of additional parties, or otherwise, then this Court, instead of entering a final order affirming, reversing or modifying the judgment from which the appeal was taken, may order the case to be remanded to the lower court. Upon remand to the lower court, such further proceedings shall be had by amendment of the pleadings, introduction of additional evidence, making of additional parties, or otherwise, as may be necessary for determining the action upon its merits as if no appeal had been taken and the judgment from which the appeal was taken had not been entered; provided, however, that the order entered by this Court in remanding said case, and the opinion of this Court on which said order is passed, shall be conclusive as to the points finally decided thereby. In such an order remanding a case, this Court will express the purpose for so remanding and in its opinion filed with said order will determine all questions which may have been properly presented.'

Fletcher v. Havre de Grace Fireworks Co., 229 Md. 196, 201, 177 A.2d 908, 183 A.2d 386 (1962), involved an action to recover for personal injuries and property damages which resulted from explosions on the premises of a fireworks plant. The plaintiff appealed from the sustaining of the demurrers of the individual defendants, insofar as the rulings were adverse to her. This Court affirmed the judgment of the lower court. However, before issuance of the mandate, a motion was filed for modification of the opinion, which alleged that, after the entry of the order below, the appellant had been apprised of facts which could enable her to state a cause of action against the individual defendants. In a four to three decision, the Court modified its original opinion and remanded the case for further proceedings under the Rule, without affirmance or reversal. In his opinion for the majority, Judge Horney referred to the unusual circumstances of the case. Plaintiffs in eleven other similar cases, by stipulation, were bound by the decision. The newly discovered evidence was not available when the order below was entered, so that laches or neglect could not be imputed to the appellant. Judge Horney said:

'The motion to modify is essentially a motion to amend, which, had the case not been appealed, could have been timely filed in the lower court. And, since the lower court did not consider whether amendment of the declaration should be...