Hempfling v. Patterson
Decision Date | 20 May 1964 |
Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 13841. |
Citation | 229 F. Supp. 391 |
Parties | Ruth Marie HEMPFLING by her father and next friend William C. Hempfling, and William C. Hempfling v. John W. PATTERSON. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Maryland |
Kenneth C. Proctor, R. Taylor, McLean, Proctor, Royston & Mueller, Towson, Md., of counsel, Thomas S. Jackson and Francis L. Young, Jr., Jackson & Gray, Washington, D. C., for plaintiffs.
Clater W. Smith, Herbert F. Murray and Phillip L. Goldsborough III, Baltimore, Md., for defendant.
This is a suit growing out of a collision of a sled with an automobile on February 14, 1960 on Crosby Road in Silver Spring, Montgomery County, Maryland. Jurisdiction is based upon diversity of citizenship, adequately alleged and proved as to diversity and amount. The plaintiffs are Ruth Marie Hempfling (Ruth) then aged nine and one-half years old, and William C. Hempfling (father) both citizens and residents of Maryland, and the defendant is John W. Patterson (defendant), a citizen and resident of the State of Oklahoma. Ruth, through her father, sues for physical injuries and pain and suffering, there being no claim of permanent disability except for slight operative and abrasion scars. The father sues for past medical expenses.
The case was tried before a jury. The defendant offered a request for a directed verdict at the end of plaintiff's case which was denied. An oral motion for a directed verdict was made at the end of the whole case, on which ruling was reserved by the court. The jury was unable to agree and was discharged. A timely motion under Rule 50(b), F.R. Civ.P., for verdict notwithstanding the disagreement of the jury was filed. Memoranda in support thereof and in opposition thereto were filed and oral argument was heard, supplemented by correspondence.
The approach to such a motion has recently been set forth by the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in Beaty Shopping Center, Inc. v. The Monarch Insurance Company of Ohio, 4 Cir. 1963, 315 F.2d 467, 469, where the court said:
Fully appreciating the limitations so expressed, this court nevertheless has decided to grant defendant's motion. A review of the evidence will be required. Although in most areas there is no real conflict, when conflict occurs the version most favorable to plaintiffs will of course be stated.
Snow had fallen the night of Saturday, February 13, 1960, and the early morning of February 14th, to a depth of some six inches. A snow plow had been used on Crosby Road and Pin Oak Drive, the two streets involved. Whether this occurred before or after the snowfall had ceased is not clear, but in any event Crosby Road was icy and slick, and Pin Oak Drive was slippery, slick and the snow well packed.
Crosby Road runs roughly East and West, is approximately 27 feet wide, and is slightly upgrade at the points involved. Pin Oak Drive runs roughly north and south, is approximately 27 feet wide, with a substantial slope to Crosby Road, where it flattens out and dead ends. There is a stop sign at the corner of Crosby Road and Pin Oak Drive, controlling vehicular traffic using Pin Oak Drive. Ruth was familiar with this sign, and with its location.
Defendant had left his home to get some groceries. The automobile he was driving was not equipped with snow tires or chains, the regular tires having a better tread than defendant's snow tires.1 He was proceeding at a rate of fifteen to twenty miles per hour westerly on his own side of Crosby Road, approaching Pin Oak Drive. He had had no difficulty in the operation or performance of the auto, and had observed no sledding, although children with, but not using, sleds were at an intersection to the east of Pin Oak Drive. When defendant was thirty to forty feet from Pin Oak Drive he saw Ruth on her sled up Pin Oak Drive the same or a greater distance.2
Defendant took "evasive action", applying the power brakes slowly at first, and finally sufficiently to cause a three foot skid mark, and pulled gradually to the left.3 Ruth on her sled came in contact with the right front side of defendant's auto, going underneath, her clothes catching on the right tie rod. Defendant's auto came to a stop within about a car length after the collision, having travelled a total of sixty to sixty-five feet, and ending up about two feet from the south side of Crosby Road, the front being about three feet east of the west line of Pin Oak Drive if extended. The auto was slightly angled, the front wheels turned to the left.4
Ruth, her brother and other children had started sledding around two o'clock in the afternoon. After a short series of runs down another road they moved over to Pin Oak Drive, and had been sledding between one and two hours when the accident occurred. The children started from different distances, Ruth usually beginning about one-half way up the hill. All the children would sled across Crosby Road, at first going over the south curb of Crosby Road and onto the lawn of Norman L. Arnold. Because he was afraid the sleds would strike the curb, and also to keep the children off his lawn, Arnold made available his driveway, which faced, but went beyond, the west line of Pin Oak Drive, and cleared the south one-third to stop the sleds. This condition had existed for an appreciable period of time before the accident.
Immediately upon Ruth and her brother having reached Pin Oak Drive, her father had taken a stand at the Arnold driveway, where he watched "unceasingly" until a few minutes before the accident, at which time he went into the Arnold basement for a cocktail to warm up. At that time Ruth was half way up Pin Oak Drive, and the father expected her to come down on her sled.
The reason the father had maintained his lookout was to look out for the coasting children, and to warn them, and the driver of an auto, if any was seen. No auto had passed during the period the father was watching.
Ruth's speed was five to seven miles per hour, or faster5; such a speed that it would be hard to stop6; "fast;"7 moving "quite rapidly."8
Ruth's sled could be guided by bending the front of the runners, and in addition she could affect its, or her, progress, by sticking her foot out, or falling off.
When Ruth saw the approaching auto, she "froze" from fright; could not move or fall off; and "blacked out" when close to Crosby Road.
Defendant testified that when he saw Ruth, and defendant's brother testified that when he first saw the auto, each thought that there would be a collision between the auto and the sled. Such would seem to have been Ruth's impression also, in view of her "reactions."
Just how far east of Pin Oak Drive a good view of its roadbed could be obtained is not entirely clear, although the father testified that it could be done at seventy feet to the east.
Discussion.
Defendant contends that Ruth's sled was a "vehicle" the operation of which was controlled by the stop sign (Annotated Code of Maryland, 1957 Edition, Article 66½, sections 233, 242); that Ruth was required to come to a stop before entering Crosby Road; and that her failure to do so was the proximate cause of her injury. Plaintiffs contend that Ruth's sled was not a "vehicle" controlled by the stop sign. Plaintiffs do not contend that Ruth was a pedestrian. Even if she were, she would have had no right of way, since there were no marked cross walks on Crosby Road; and there being no sidewalks on Pin Oak Drive, there could of course be no prolongation thereof. (Article 66½, section 2(a) (9)).
The potentially relevant provisions of Article 66½ of the Maryland Code of Public General Laws are:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Moon v. Weeks
...on our finding that the sled in this case was a 'vehicle', § 231(a) is applicable. We find support for our view in Hempfling v. Patterson, 229 F.Supp. 391 (D.C.Md.1964). 13 In that case a child on a sled went through a stop sign and collided with an automobile. Sections 233 and 244 of the t......
-
Laser v. Wilson
...upon him the care and welfare responsibilities of the parent bestowed by God and Act of the General Assembly. See Hempfling v. Patterson, 229 F.Supp. 391 (D.Md.1964). In the case before us the potentially dangerous condition was obvious to anyone with normal vision. The photographs make tha......
- Curl v. United States, Civ. A. No. 1031-W.