Hendrix v. Burns

Decision Date07 June 2012
Docket NumberNo. 2039,Sept. Term, 2010.,2039
Citation205 Md.App. 1,43 A.3d 415
PartiesMarjorie Gayle HENDRIX v. Charles Robert BURNS, et ux.
CourtCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Clay M. Barnes, Towson, MD, for Appellant.

Harold L. Burgin (Stoner, Preston & Boswell Chartered, on the brief), Towson, MD, for Appellee.

Panel: DEBORAH S. EYLER, MEREDITH and WOODWARD, JJ.

DEBORAH S. EYLER, J.

Marjorie Gayle Hendrix, the appellant, was injured in an automobile accident caused by Charles Robert Burns, one of the appellees. In the Circuit Court for Baltimore County, Mrs. Hendrix sued Mr. Burns and Candice Marie Burns, his wife, the other appellee, alleging battery and negligence against Mr. Burns and negligent entrustment against Mrs. Burns. Mrs. Hendrix prayed a jury trial. Before trial, the court granted summary judgment on the battery claim and Mr. and Mrs. Burns admitted liability on the negligence claims against them. The trial court granted motions in limine that precluded Mrs. Hendrix from introducing certain evidence and making certain information known to the jury, as we shall discuss below; it also granted a motion to strike an amendment to the complaint.

The case was tried to the jury solely on damages, for four days. The jurors returned a verdict in favor of Mrs. Hendrix for $85,000. Unhappy with the outcome, Mrs. Hendrix noted an appeal, posing four questions for review, which we have combined and reworded as follows:

I. Did the circuit court err in granting summary judgment on the battery claim?

II. Did the circuit court err or abuse its discretion by granting motions in limine that precluded the admission of certain evidence?

III. Did the circuit court abuse its discretion by granting Mrs. Burns's motion to strike Mrs. Hendrix's amendment to the complaint? 1We shall affirm the circuit court's judgment.

FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS

The automobile accident that gave rise to this lawsuit took place on July 25, 2005, at approximately 5:30 p.m., at the intersection of Belair Road and Glen Park Road, which at its western terminus is the entry to a shopping center. The intersection is controlled by a traffic light.

Mr. Burns was driving south on Belair Road, in a Jeep Cherokee. The traffic light at Glen Park Road was red in his direction, and at least one car was stopped at the light. Mr. Burns failed to stop for the red light and drove through the intersection. At the same time, Mrs. Hendrix was driving her Toyota Corolla through the intersection, in an easterly direction on Glen Park Road, having just exited the shopping center. The light was green in her favor when she entered the intersection, and remained so as she traveled through it. In the intersection, Mr. Burns's Jeep struck the rear driver's side of Mrs. Hendrix's Toyota, causing the Toyota to spin around at least once and almost hit another vehicle head-on. In the collision, Mrs. Hendrix sustained injuries to her neck, shoulders, chest, and abdomen and suffered emotional injuries, including thinking she would not survive.

The Jeep Mr. Burns was driving was owned by Mrs. Burns. She allowed her husband to use it, with her knowledge and permission, on a regular basis.

Mr. Burns had a history of substance abuse, a criminal record, and a record of driving violations. On the day of the accident, he had consumed alcohol. After the collision, he initially tried to leave the scene in his damaged Jeep, but did not get far, and walked back to the accident location. He was taken into custody and charged with reckless driving, driving while under the influence of alcohol, driving while impaired by alcohol, and related offenses. On November 1, 2005, also in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County, Mr. Burns was tried on an agreed statement of facts and was found guilty of driving while under the influence of alcohol and reckless driving. The State nolle prossed the remaining charges. Mr. Burns was sentenced to 18 months in prison, all but three months suspended, one year probation, a $250 fine for driving while under the influence of alcohol, and a $100 fine for reckless driving. On December 15, 2005, Mr. Burns's sentence for driving while under the influence of alcohol was reduced to 16 days in prison with 18 months probation and a $250 fine.

On October 22, 2007, Mrs. Hendrix filed suit in the case at bar. As noted, before trial, the court granted summary judgment in favor of Mr. Burns on the battery claim; thereafter, and also before trial, Mr. Burns and Mrs. Burns each conceded liability for the claims against them (negligence against Mr. Burns and negligent entrustment against Mrs. Burns), leaving damages as the sole issue for decision by a jury.2 With knowledge that the Burnses each were conceding liability, the trial court granted motions in limine that precluded Mrs. Hendrix from introducing evidence that, in the time leading up to the accident, Mr. Burns had been drunk; had been involved in a “road rage” incident with another driver and was pursuing that driver when he ran the red light at the intersection; had attempted to flee after the accident; and had a criminal record that included DUI convictions. In a related decision, the trial court ruled that the jury could not be informed in opening statement (or in any other way) of the precise nature of the negligent entrustment claim for which Mrs. Burns had conceded liability, nor could Mrs. Hendrix introduce evidence of the facts underlying the negligent entrustment claim, i.e., the events in Mr. Burns's past that were known to his wife and gave rise to a duty on her part not to entrust the Jeep to him.

On August 26, 2010, Mrs. Hendrix filed an amended complaint, changing the negligent entrustment count to add allegationsof intentional misconduct on the part of Mrs. Burns. Mrs. Burns filed a motion to strike the amendments.

The trial took place beginning September 29, 2010. At the outset, the court granted Mrs. Burns's motion to strike the portion of the complaint that had been amended. After jury selection, and before opening statements, the court gave introductory instructions to the jury, including that Mr. and Mrs. Burns had conceded liability. In that regard, the court told the jurors:

Members of the panel, I wanted to also instruct you at the beginning here that this matter is before you with respect to damages for personal injuries sustained by [Mrs. Hendrix], and that the defendants [Mr. and Mrs. Burns] ... have essentially stipulated to liability in this case so this is not an issue that you need to decide as to the accident and who caused the accident. It's a question as to the damages alleged to be sustained by [Mrs. Hendrix] and what amount that would be, you know, with respect to that.

Mrs. Hendrix called Captain Jason Hahn of the Baltimore County Fire Department, who testified that he was the first emergency responder on the scene of the accident and called for a rescue team to extract Mrs. Hendrix from her damaged car. Gary Lay, an Emergency Medical Technician (“EMT”), testified that he arrived five minutes after the accident had happened. By then, Mrs. Hendrix had been removed from her vehicle. She was complaining of pain in her left shoulder, left flank, back, head, chest, left abdominal region, and neck. She had a half-inch laceration on her head. She was conscious and alert. EMT Lay examined Mrs. Hendrix, immobilized her neck, and transported her to The Johns Hopkins Bayview Medical Center.

Steven Hendrix, Mrs. Hendrix's husband, testified that when he arrived at the scene of the accident his wife already was in the ambulance and was complaining of “excruciating” pain. They went to the hospital and returned home early the next morning. They had to ask family members to come and help take care of Mrs. Hendrix. At the time of trial, Mrs. Hendrix still was experiencing neck pain. On cross-examination, Mr. Hendrix acknowledged that his wife's bruises went away after several months, and that she recently had traveled to Ireland for two weeks.

Officer Ronald Leard of the Baltimore County Police Department also was called by Mrs. Hendrix. He testified that he was assigned to investigate the accident. He was not able to determine the speed of either vehicle prior to the impact.

Mrs. Hendrix called two independent eyewitnesses. The first, Harry Monios, testified that he was driving a truck next to Mrs. Hendrix's vehicle at the time of the accident and saw the Jeep “fly” through the intersection. The Jeep hit Mr. Monios's truck and then “slammed into [Mrs. Hendrix's] car” and “spun it around.” The second eyewitness, Ryan Cannon, testified that he also saw the accident happen. He saw the Jeep drive through the red light on Belair Road. He estimated that it was traveling at about 30 miles per hour.

Mrs. Hendrix called Mr. Burns as an adverse witness. Mr. Burns testified that he remembered traveling through the intersection and that right before the crash he was driving at 45 miles per hour, which was the speed limit for that segment of Belair Road. Before he reached the intersection, he saw the traffic light turn yellow and attempted to slow down. He did not see any vehicles in the intersection until the time of impact.

Mrs. Hendrix's neighbor, Tracey Myers, a nurse, testified that she helped Mrs. Hendrix care for herself at home for several weeks after the accident. Nurse Myers observed extensive bruises that were “almost black” on Mrs. Hendrix's chest, breasts, belly, and sides in the days after the accident. She described Mrs. Hendrix as “a very caring and vibrant woman” who became “very despondent and very depressed that she could not do for herself and could not do for others as she has normally done.”

At the time of the accident, Mrs. Hendrix was employed at the Baltimore County 911 call center. Her friend and co-worker, Amy Siedlecki, testified that, after the accident, Mrs. Hendrix was unable to enjoy hobbies such as working in her garden, photography, or...

To continue reading

Request your trial
35 cases
  • Colkley v. State
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • July 2, 2021
    ...v. Simms , 420 Md. 705, 724–25, 25 A.3d 144 (2011) ; Myer v. State , 403 Md. 463, 476, 943 A.2d 615 (2008) ; and Hendrix v. Burns , 205 Md. App. 1, 29, 43 A.3d 415 (2012) ). Likewise, our review of a trial court's application of Rule 5–609 is deferential. King v. State , 407 Md. 682, 696, 9......
  • Larocca v. Creig Northrop Team, P.C., 0766
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • June 25, 2014
    ...88 (1996) (stating that this Court reviews the grant of a protective order under an abuse of discretion standard); Hendrix v. Burns, 205 Md.App. 1, 45, 43 A.3d 415 (2012) (“We review for abuse of discretion a court's decision to allow or disallow amendments to pleadings or to grant or deny ......
  • Mines v. State
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • November 27, 2012
    ...be determined by the court....”); State v. Simms, 420 Md. 705, 724–25, 25 A.3d 144 (2011)(and cases cited therein); Hendrix v. Burns, 205 Md.App. 1, 29, 43 A.3d 415 (2012)(“The decision whether to allow or preclude the admission of evidence is generally committed to the sound discretion of ......
  • Holloway-Johnson v. Beall
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • November 25, 2014
    ...as a harmful or offensive contact with a person resulting from an act intended to cause the person such contact.”). In Hendrix v. Burns, 205 Md.App. 1, 20, 43 A.3d 415, cert. denied, 427 Md. 608, 50 A.3d 607 (2012), this Court explained the necessary intent:“It is universally understood tha......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
4 books & journal articles
  • Table of Cases
    • United States
    • Maryland State Bar Association Maryland Automobile Accident Deskbook (MSBA)
    • Invalid date
    ...364, 558 A.2d 1206 (1989)..........................................................................................22 Hendrix v. Burns, 205 Md. App. 1, 43 A.3d 415, cert. denied, 427 Md. 608, 50 A.3d 607 (2012).......................................................................................
  • CHAPTER ONE GENERAL STANDARDS FOR IMPOSING AND DEFENDING LIABILITY
    • United States
    • Maryland State Bar Association Maryland Automobile Accident Deskbook (MSBA)
    • Invalid date
    ...Kiriakos v. Dankos, 448 Md. 440, 139 A.3d 1006 (2016); Woolridge v. Abrishami, 233 Md. App. 278, 163 A.3d 2017 (2017); Hendrix v. Burns, 205 Md. App. 1, 43 A.3d 415 (2012); Bowser v. Resh, 170 Md. App. 614, 907 A.2d 910 (2005) (finding trial court did not err in refusing negligent entrustme......
  • CHAPTER SIXTEEN DAMAGES IN MOTOR VEHICLE COLLISION CASES
    • United States
    • Maryland State Bar Association Maryland Automobile Accident Deskbook (MSBA)
    • Invalid date
    ...140, 146 (1964).[41] Beynon v. Montgomery Cablevision Limited Partnership, 351 Md. 460, 718 A.2d 1161 (1998). But see, Hendrix v. Burns, 205 Md. App. 1, 43 A.3d 415, cert. denied, 427 Md. 608, 50 A.3d 607 (2012), motor tort, plaintiff could recover for fright connected to the accident (and ......
  • Ii. [§ 3.2] Battery
    • United States
    • Maryland State Bar Association Pleading Causes of Action in Maryland (MSBA) (2022 Ed.) Chapter 3 Torts
    • Invalid date
    ...intentional, unpermitted touching of the body of another that is harmful or offensive to the person who was touched. Hendrix v. Burnes, 205 Md. App. 1, 19-21, 43 A.3d 415, 427, cert. denied, 427 Md. 608, 50 A.3d 607 (2012); MPJI-Cv. 15:2. "It is clear that '[a] person can use an automobile ......

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