Leonard v. Hanson
| Decision Date | 06 April 1961 |
| Docket Number | No. 229,229 |
| Citation | 225 Md. 76,169 A.2d 459 |
| Parties | Charles Burke LEONARD v. Dorothy R. HANSON. |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Daniel B. Leonard, Baltimore (Bowie, Burke & Leonard, Baltimore, on the brief), for appellant.
James P. Garland, Baltimore (Semmes, Bowen & Semmes, Baltimore, on the brief), for appellee.
Before BRUNE, C. J., and PRESCOTT, HORNEY, MARBURY and SYBERT, JJ.
The plaintiff-appellant seeks reversal of a judgment for the defendant-appellee, contending that the trial court, sitting without a jury, should have found that the accident in which he was injured was caused by negligence of the appellee, and that he was not guilty of any contributory negligence.
Shortly after dark, on a clear, dry day, appellant walked to the street side of his automobile, which was parked facing west at the north curb of a Baltimore street. He testified that there was a line of cars proceeding west on his side of the street, so he waited beside his car door before opening it. Appellee's car was the last in line. Appellant said it was 8 or 10 feet from where he was standing, and that had it continued its speed and course it would have been going by as he opened his door. He stated that he opened the door 'about two feet, just far enough to get in', and had his head and right foot inside the car, with his left foot still on the ground, when he was struck by appellee's car. He said he was thrown against and partly into his own car, and then was mashed between the door and frame of his car as the door was pushed in against him. When asked whether he had stepped back as he opened the door, he replied, 'I don't think so'. He had on dark clothes. His theory was that, just after he took his eyes off appellee's car and opened his door, appellee's car must have slowed down and veered to the right, thus striking him and the door, although he testified he did not actually see it swerve or slow down.
Appellee testified that she was driving to the right of the center line of the street, fairly close to the parked cars, but following directly behind the car in front of her. She stated that she did not see appellant until, as she went by him, she had a 'very quick flash of a figure getting in a car', and heard a noise (obviously her car striking his door). She denied that she swerved or turned to the right. A photograph of appellee's car showed that the damage to it from the collision with the edge of appellant's door, was a sizeable dent in the right front fender, beginning over the wheel and extending back to the forward edge of the right front door.
Significantly, although appellant testified he opened his car door only two feet, he said that when he saw appellee's car immediately after the impact it was three feet from his car. It would seem obvious that appellant opened his door a greater distance than he thought he ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Cooksey v. State
-
Dix v. Spampinato
...vehicular traffic then in the street.' Vokroy v. Johnson, 233 Md. 269, 273-74, 196 A.2d 451, 453 (1964); see also Leonard v. Hanson, 225 Md. 76, 79, 169 A.2d 459, 461 (1961); Campbell v. Jenifer, supra, 222 Md. at 111, 159 A.2d Miss Dix attempts to skirt the rule of these cases by her conte......
- State v. White
-
Azar v. Adams
...the right of way of vehicular traffic then in the street." Vokroy v. Johnson, 233 Md. 269, 273-74 (1964); see also Leonard v. Hanson, 225 Md. 76, 79 (1961); Campbell v. Jenifer, 222 Md. [106,] 111 [159 A.2d 353 (1960) Miss Dix attempts to skirt the rule of these cases by her contention that......