Gudelsky v. Boone

Decision Date13 January 1942
Docket Number77.
Citation23 A.2d 694,180 Md. 265
PartiesGUDELSKY et al. v. BOONE.
CourtMaryland Court of Appeals

Rehearing Denied March 3, 1942.

Appeal from Baltimore City Court; Rowland K. Adams, Judge.

Action by James W. Boone against Abraham Gudelsky and others individually and as copartners, trading as the Contee Sand and Gravel Company, and another, for damages sustained in an automobile collision. From a judgment on a verdict for the plaintiff, the defendants appeal.

Reversed.

William R. Semans, of Baltimore (Barton, Wilmer, Bramble Addison & Semans, of Baltimore, on the brief), for appellants.

J. Cookman Boyd, Jr., of Baltimore (Boyd & Boyd, of Baltimore, on the brief), for appellee.

Before SLOAN, JOHNSON, DELAPLAINE, COLLINS, and MARBURY, JJ.

COLLINS Judge.

The appellee, James W. Boone, sued for damages to his automobile and for personal injuries to himself caused by collision with a truck owned by the appellant. On this appeal from a judgment on a verdict for $700 in favor of the plaintiff, appellee here, the only question for decision is whether the Trial Court was correct in its refusal to withdraw the case from the jury.

The only testimony in the case is that of the appellee and the driver of appellant's truck.

The collision occurred at the intersection of the Belair Road and Parkside Drive in Baltimore City. Belair Road runs in a northerly and southerly direction and is intersected at right angles by Parkside Drive. At the intersection where the collision occurred Belair Road is marked with stop signs and there is an automatic traffic light at the intersection. It is conceded that this traffic light was in operation at the time of the accident. At this intersection, Belair Road is 62 feet 5 inches wide and Parkside Drive 24 feet 4 inches in width. North and south bound car tracks are in the center of Belair Road each 5 feet 8 inches wide and there is a space between the two tracks of 6 feet 3 inches. There is a distance of 22 feet 5 inches from the respective curb lines of Belair Road to the tracks.

The appellee testified that he was driving his automobile north on Belair Road on the right of the center of the road in the northbound car tracks intending to turn into Parkside Drive and as he approached the intersection the traffic light was red, that there were two automobiles on Belair Road driving south which stopped for the red light, and after the light turned green and the two machines on the south side had passed Parkside Drive, he looked north and saw appellant's truck coming south on Belair Road about 196 feet distant from him and he started to make a left-hand turn into Parkside Drive. He further stated that as he was crossing the southbound car tracks he looked again and appellant's truck was then half a block away, about 123 feet distance from him, and that he thought he had ample time to cross the remaining part of Belair Road and proceeded to do so. When he got near the curb on the west side of Belair Road he heard a crash and the next thing he knew he was out in Herring Run Park on the east side of Belair Road a distance of about 120 feet from the place of the accident. He stated that the driver of appellant's truck came over to the car and asked him if he was hurt and they walked back to where the accident happened and the driver of appellant's truck said, 'If I hadn't been going too fast I wouldn't have hit you.' He admitted on cross-examination that he knew when the green light went for north and south traffic that that would make a red light going across Belair Road into Parkside Drive. He further testified that his car at the time he was crossing into Parkside Drive was moving about ten miles an hour.

The driver of appellant's truck testified that he was driving a ton and a half truck loaded with five tons of sand on it south on Belair Road not over 25 miles per hour and that he had been driving on this route for about five years, that Belair Road at that point is all down grade, that there were some cars ahead of him which were stopped at the red light, that before he got to the red light it had just turned green and the cars in front proceeded across the intersection and he continued right on behind them because he had the green light in his favor. He further said that appellee's car was coming north and had not reached the intersection and just as his truck was about 15 or 20 feet from the intersection and appellee's car was 30 feet from the intersection, that appellee drove his car catercornered across the intersection and made him duck into Parkside Drive, that the middle of his radiator hit the lamp post on the southwest corner at Belair Road and Parkside Drive and hit appellee's car on the right-hand front. He denied that he told appellee that if he hadn't been going so fast that he would not have hit him.

That part of Section 235 of Article 56, Flack's Code, containing what is commonly known as the Boulevard Law does not apply in the instant case as it is specifically provided therein that it does not apply when traffic at such marked intersection is controlled by traffic signals.

To grant the demurrer prayers, it would have been necessary for the trial Judge to rule as a matter of law that Boone, the appellee, was guilty of contributory negligence. This court said in the case of Friedman v. Hendler...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • Legum v. Hough
    • United States
    • Maryland Court of Appeals
    • 12 Enero 1949
    ... ... cases where traffic is controlled by lights (Sun Cab v ... Faulkner, 163 Md. 477, 163 A. 194; Gudelsky v ... Boone, 180 Md. 265, 23 A.2d 694) or by stop signs ... (Carlin v. Worthington, 172 Md. 505, 192 A. 356; ... Shedlock v. Marshall, 186 Md ... ...

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