Ford v. Bradford
| Decision Date | 06 June 1957 |
| Docket Number | No. 176,176 |
| Citation | 132 A.2d 488,213 Md. 534 |
| Parties | John A. FORD v. Jesse P. BRADFORD. |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Lansdale G. Sasscer, Jr., Upper Marlboro (Sasscer, Clagett & Powers and Jerrold V. Powers, Upper Marlboro, on the brief), for appellee.
Before COLLINS, HENDERSON, HAMMOND and PRESCOTT, JJ., and FLOYD J. KINTNER, Specially Assigned Judge.
The appellant filed suit in the Circuit Court for Prince George's County to recover for personal injuries and property damages allegedly sustained when his automobile ran into the rear of a tractor-trailer owned by the appellee. At the close of the appellee's case, the Court directed a verdict in favor of the appellee, and it is from this action of the trial Court that this appeal is taken.
In considering whether this ruling was correct, this Court must consider all of the evidence offered by the appellant in a light most favorable to him, and draw therefrom such inferences as may naturally and legitimately be deduced therefrom which tend to support the appellant's right of recovery. And, as the ruling in this case was made at the conclusion of the appellee's testimony, we shall consider, in accordance with the general rule, any evidence offered by the appellee that tends to cure a defect in, or contributes favorably to, the proof of the plaintiff.
On the evening of December, 1, 1954, between the hours of 6:00 and 6:30 P.M., the appellee's tractor-trailer was at a standstill, without lights thereon, on the Greenbelt-Glendale Road in Prince George's County. The evening was dark and it had been raining. The appellant was driving his passenger car along said highway approaching the rear of the tractor-trailer. The appellant testified that he had the lights of his automobile on; that he was travelling about 40 to 45 miles per hour; that there was an oncoming car going in the opposite direction; that the bright lights of this car did not 'blind' him, but he 'couldn't see beyond them'; that as soon as he could see beyond them, he saw, for the first time at a distance of 55 to 60 feet in front of him, the tractor-trailer 'sitting right in the middle of the road'; and that he immediately applied his brakes and tried to stop, but was unable to do so and ran into the rear of the tractor-trailer. He further testified that the tractor-trailer was definitely on the asphalt roadway; that the right rear wheels thereof were on the asphalt; that there was one reflector on the extreme right side of the trailer that was 'covered with mud'; that it was so 'mudcovered you couldn't see it'; and that he had previously lost one eye completely and was required to drive with mirrors 'set at all times'.
The appellant then offered Corporal Thornberry of the county police who testified he arrived at the scene of the accident and noticed there was one reflector on the right rear of the tractor that was partially covered with mud, and, to the best of his recollection, the rear wheels of the tractor were on the 'hard-surface' part of the road.
Whereupon, Officer Baze, also of the county police department, was called by the appellant. He testified that he was the investigating officer of this accident; that when he arrived at the location of the collision he came in from the front, passed the motor vehicles and turned around about 100 feet to their rear; that there was a red reflector on the right rear of the trailer that illuminated with his headlights for this 100 feet and he thought it would illuminate for a distance of 300 feet; that the reflector was not completely clean; that the tractor-trailer was stopped 'partially', i. e. about two-thirds, in the traffic lane; that the right wheels thereof were off the pavement; that the road was 'slippery to a degree'. He then testified in response to a question by counsel for the appellant, over objection by counsel for the appellee, that in his opinion, the appellant was travelling at an excessive speed that was greater than reasonable and prudent 'due to road conditions'. He also testified that in determining the position of the tractor-trailer with respect to the shoulder of the road, the tractor-trailer was 'as far over as it could go on the shoulder.'
The appellee then took the stand and testified he was driving his tractor-trailer on the evening in question with his lights on; that when about a mile from the scene of the accident he went over a 'bump', and immediately thereafter his engine began 'spitting and popping' and the lights 'went dim and bright, dim and bright'; that they went 'off and on'; that, the engine and lights finally 'cut plumb off'; that he 'drifted' down the road about 1,200 feet away from a curve and pulled off the side of the road as far as he could and stopped; that he got out of the truck with the intention of placing flares, but when he saw the appellant's car approaching at 'quite a speed', he 'jumped back' into the truck; that he observed the other car coming from the opposite direction; that shortly after he got back into his truck, the appellant ran into the rear of his trailer; that he 'ran back' to see if appellant were injured; that when a Mr. Thompson arrived, they checked the electrical trouble on the tractor-trailer and discovered that a battery cable had 'jumped off', and when this was replaced the lights went on and the engine started as soon as he tried it; that he 'stepped' off the distance down the road in the direction from which the appellant was travelling, that his tractor-trailer would have been visible in the daytime, and this distance was about 1,100 feet; and that he had broked off the tail light of his trailer the day before, and he knew it was off.
Mr. Thompson was then called as a witness, and his testimony corroborated that of the appellee concerning the battery terminal.
The pictures indicate a hard surfaced road in good condition and of moderate width in the country. It is fairly straight and level with good visibility in both directions from the scene of the collision. To the right of the road, facing in the same direction as the tractor-trailer, is a dirt shoulder several feet wide, bordered by a row of large trees.
After the production of the above evidence, the appellee filed a motion for a directed verdict on the grounds that the evidence failed to show any primary negligence on the part of the appellee, and, the evidence, when considered in a light most favorable to the appellant, disclosed that he was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law. As stated above, the court granted this motion.
The appellant contends here that the question concerning contributory negligence on his part was one for the jury to determine. He also claims that the evidence, considered in a light most favorable to him, discloses three negligent acts on the part of the appellee that should have been submitted to the jury, namely: (1) failure to maintain a red reflector on the rear of the appellee's vehicle so as to be visible for a distance of 300 feet, as required by Art. 66 1/2, sec. 237(c, d), Maryland Code (1951); (2) failure to stop or park his vehicle off the highway as required by Art. 66 1/2, sec. 209; and (3) operating a motor vehicle with knowledge of its unsafe condition in violation of Art. 66 1/2, sec. 234.
We shall first consider the question of primary negligence. Art. 66 1/2, sec. 209 of the Maryland Code (1951) reads as follows:
'(Stopping, Standing, or Parking Outside of Business or Residence Districts.) (a) Upon any highway outside of a business or residence district no person shall stop, park, or leave standing any vehicle, whether attended or unattended, upon the paved or improved or main traveled part of the highway when it is practical to stop, park, or so leave such vehicle off such part of said highway, but in every event a clear and unobstructed width of at least twelve (12) feet of such part of the highway opposite such standing vehicle shall be left for the free passage of other vehicles and a clear view of such stopped vehicle be available from a distance of 200 feet in each direction upon such highway.
'(b) This section shall not apply to the driver of any vehicle which is disabled while on the paved or improved or main traveled portion of a highway in such manner and to such extent that it is impossible to avoid stopping and temporarily leaving such disabled vehicle in such position.'
It has been held by the Court on many occasions that the violation of a statutory regulation is evidence of negligence, and if such violation causes...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dean v. Redmiles
...of,' citing our decision to that effect in Fowler v. Smith, 240 Md. 240, 248, 213 A.2d 549, 555 (1965)." In Ford v. Bradford, 213 Md. 534, 541, 132 A.2d 488, 492 (1957), Judge Prescott said for the Court, "It has been held by the Court on many occasions that the violation of a statutory reg......
- Pagotto v. State
-
Ayala v. Lee
...the statutory violation was the proximate cause of the accident, he and his employer are liable for negligence.8See Ford v. Bradford, 213 Md. 534, 541, 132 A.2d 488 (1957) (“[T]he violation of a statutory regulation is evidence of negligence, and if such violation causes or contributes to t......
-
Moodie v. Santoni
...legally sufficient as tending to prove negligence, and the weight and value of such evidence will be left to the jury. Ford v. Bradford, 213 Md. 534 (132 A.2d 488). Cf. Bernardi v. Roedel, 225 Md. 17, 21 (168 A.2d 886). However, the rule as above stated does not mean, as is illustrated by t......