Jackson v. Forwood
Decision Date | 14 May 1946 |
Docket Number | 113. |
Parties | JACKSON v. FORWOOD et al. |
Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Motion for Modification or Reargument Denied June 18, 1946.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Kent County; J. Owen Knotts, Chief Judge and Albert Constable and William R. Horney, Judges.
Suit by Blanche O. Jackson against Walter F. Forwood and Richard A Grieninger to recover for injuries sustained by the plaintiff when she was struck by a taxicab owned and operated by defendants. From a judgment granting defendants' motion for judgment notwithstanding verdict, the plaintiff appeals.
Judgment affirmed.
William Pepper Constable and John D. Alexander, both of Baltimore (Harry D. Barnes, of Elkton, and Harrison W. Vickers and Beck & Carvell, all of Chestertown, on the brief), for appellant.
Edward D. E. Rollins, of Elkton, and Robert H. Archer, of Belair (Stanley R. Bossard, of Baltimore, and R. Hynson Rogers, of Chestertown, on the brief), for appellees.
Before MARBURY, C.J., and DELAPLAINE, COLLINS, GRASON and HENDERSON, JJ.
A pedestrian plaintiff, in a suit for personal injuries against the operator and the owner of a taxicab, appeals from a judgment n. o. v., entered after a jury had disagreed. The facts in the case are fully set out in appellant's brief, and as this statement is accepted by the appellees, we quote the parts of it pertinent to the issue before us:
The defendants, at the conclusion of the whole case, offered two prayers for a directed verdict. The first related to their primary negligence, and the second to the contributory negligence of the plaintiff. Both prayers were rejected, and after the jury disagreed, a motion for a judgment n. o. v. was filed under the provisions of Trial Rule 8(a), Rules of Practice and Procedure, pt. 3, subd. 3. This brings up both questions, primary negligence and contributory negligence.
The driver of the taxicab was on a boulevard highway, and his lights were on; but he said that when he was just getting ready to pass the bus, the lights of the latter were so blinding that he could not see 'right at that point' until he got there. He said he was about 20 or 30 feet away from the bus when it blinded him the worst, and that is when he slowed up. But he did not apply his brakes until he saw the object in front of him, which turned out to be the appellant. At that time he was about 10 or 12 feet from her. The evidence was that the skid marks caused by the brakes on the taxicab extended for over 60 feet. The officer said that he stepped them off and they were between 60 and 65 feet. The taxi driver said that he was only going 15 to 20 miles an hour, but the length of the skid marks indicated a greater speed than that. The driver himself said he measured the marks the morning after the accident with a tape measure, and they were then 45 feet 3 inches. Under this testimony, we think there could be drawn a reasonable inference that the driver did not have his car under control when he approached the bus with its blinding lights shining directly at him. Such an inference would justify the submission of the case to the jury on the question of the primary negligence of the defendants.
The motion for judgment n. o. v. was granted by the trial court on the ground of contributory negligence. If the appellant's negligence directly contributed to the happening of the accident, the negligence of the defendant as a contributing factor is immaterial. Campbell & Sons v. United Railways, 160 Md. 647, 154 A. 552; National Hauling Contractors Company v. Baltimore Transit Company, Md., 44 A.2d 450. It is essential, therefore, to examine the testimony as to the appellant's actions, in order to determine whether it shows that she was also guilty of negligence.
The law of contributory negligence is well settled. It is ordinarily a question for the jury, but where the facts are undisputed, and are open to but one inference, it is for the court to decide whether such facts show contributory negligence as a matter of law. National Hauling Contractors Company v. Baltimore Transit Company, supra, and cases there cited.
In determining whether the facts justify a holding that the plaintiff is guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law, the test is also well settled. In the case of Campbell & Sons v. United Railways, 160 Md. 647, 154 A. 552, 553, it was said: 'The formula long employed in this state to test the existence of contributory negligence as a matter of law is that the act to which that quality is ascribed must present some feature of reckless inattention or indifference so prominant and decisive in character that no room is left for ordinary minds to differ as to its imprudence.'
In the case before us, we have the testimony of the plaintiff as to her actions after she left the bus until the moment she was struck.
'Q. Then tell what happened? A. Mrs. Boyd got out first and I got out right behind her, and we came around the bus to the right front headlight, and when I looked up the road towards Port Deposit, I seen this car approaching.
'Q. Where were you then? A. At the right front headlight of the bus, and I looked up the road.
'Q. Where did you get off; was it on the improved section of the road or the shoulder? A. I got off on the shoulder.
'Q. How close was the bus parked to the shoulder? A. Right close.
'Q. And the shoulder was composed of what kind of material? A. Gravel.
'Q. And you got off on the gravel and walked up to the right front of the bus? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Then you looked where? A. To the right.
'
This is all the testimony in the case which shows what the plaintiff did after she had reached the left front of the bus. No other witness testified to any different action by her, and therefore we must accept her testimony for the purpose of this appeal as undisputed. So considered, it shows that when she was in the right front of the bus she saw a car approaching 400 feet away, running in that part of the road which she had to cross. She then walked across the front of the bus, looked to her left, but kept on walking, and when she again looked to her right, she was in the path of the car that she had...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Congressional Country Club v. Baltimore & O. R. Co.
... ... negligence must have been sequential, and not concurrent for ... the doctrine to apply.' In Jackson v. Forwood, ... 186 Md. 379, 387, 47 A.2d 81, 85, we said that the doctrine ... 'can never be invoked when the plaintiff's [or the ... deceased's] ... ...
-
Billmeyer v. State, for Use of Whiteman
... ... 347, 29 A.2d 904]; ... Webb-Pepploe v. Cooper, 159 Md. 426, 151 A. 235; ... Jendrzejewski v. Baker, 182 Md. 41, 31 A.2d 611; ... Jackson v. Forwood, 186 Md. 379, 47 A.2d 81.' ... See also Barker v. Whitter, 166 Md. 33, 170 A. 578, ... and Thompson v. Sun Cab Co., 170 Md. 299, 184 A ... ...
-
Miller v. Live Nation Worldwide, Inc.
... ... Univ ... of Maryland Eastern Shore , 388 Md. 585, 602 (2005) (citation omitted); see also Jackson v ... A ... M ... F ... Bowling Ctrs ., Inc ., 128 F. Supp. 2d 307, 311 (D. Md. 2001) ("The duty to protect ... [a plaintiff] against unreasonable risk ... Santoni , 292 Md. 582, 589 (1982) (quoting Jackson v ... Forwood , 186 Md. 379 (1946)). "It is only where the minds of reasonable persons cannot differ that the court is justified in deciding the question as a ... ...
-
Dean v. Scott
... ... 347, 29 A.2d ... 904; Webb Pepploe v. Cooper, 159 Md. 426, 151 A ... 235; Jendrzejewski v. Baker, 182 Md. 41, 31 A.2d ... 611; Jackson v. Forwood, 186 Md. 379, 47 A.2d ... 81.' See also Barker v. Whitter, 166 Md. 33, 170 ... A. 578; Thompson v. Sun Cab Co., 170 Md. 299, 184 A ... ...