Mintzer v. Miller
| Citation | 240 A.2d 262,249 Md. 506 |
| Decision Date | 10 April 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 159,159 |
| Parties | Eleanor MINTZER et al. v. George Washington MILLER, Jr. |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Solomon L. Margolis, Washington, D. C. (Stanley H. Kamerow and Allan L. Kamerow, Washington, D. C., on the brief) for appellants.
James S. McAuliffe, Jr., Rockville (Heeney, McAuliffe & McAuliffe, Rockville, on the brief) for appellee.
Before HAMMOND, C. J., and HORNEY, BARNES, FINAN and SINGLEY, JJ.
The appellants, Dr. Martin L. Mintzer and his wife, Eleanor, as plaintiffs below sued the appellee, George Washington Miller, Jr., defendant below, in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County to recover damages resulting from a rear-end collision of the defendant's automobile with that of the plaintiff. The Circuit Court (Shearin, J.) directed a verdict for the defendant at the end of the plaintiffs' case and from the judgment entered upon that verdict the plaintiffs have appealed to this Court.
In considering the evidence in this posture of the case, we must view the evidence and all reasonable inferences to be drawn from the evidence in a light most favorable to the plaintiffs. Langville v. Glen Burnie Coach Lines, Inc., 233 Md. 181, 183, 195 A.2d 717, 718 (1963). Applying this rule the record discloses the following facts.
Dr. Mintzer was driving his automobile, with his wife Eleanor as a passenger, in a southerly direction on Viers Mill Road on August 29, 1962. At approximately 12:30 p. m. he brought his automobile to a stop in the curb lane approximately eight feet behind an automobile which had stopped for the red light at the intersection of Viers Mill Road and Connecticut Avenue in Montgomery County. Viers Mill Road at this intersection runs north and south and for southbound traffic there are two driving lanes and one left-hand turn lane for traffic turning into Connecticut Avenue. There is a soft shoulder to the right of the right-hand southbound lane approximately 20 feet in width. When Dr. Mintzer stopped his vehicle in the right-hand or curb lane, there were no vehicles to his immediate right on the soft shoulder of the road. There were no automobiles in the lane to his left or in the left turn lane. At this point Dr. Mintzer's automobile was struck with substantial force from the rear by the automobile owned and driven by the defendant Miller, and was driven by this force across the lane to Dr. Mintzer's left, across the left-hand turn lane and into the road-dividing strip of concrete. The collision caused extensive damage to the rear deck and trunk of Dr. Mintzer's automobile, leaving the vehicle inoperable at the scene of the collision. Mrs. Mintzer sustained personal injuries.
Both Mr. Mintzer and his wife testified at the trial. During Dr. Mintzer's cross-examination it was developed that just before the impact Dr. Mintzer 'heard screeching of brakes' which 'seemed to be just an instant before we were hit or possibly a split second.' Dr. Mintzer further testified that he had a very brief conversation with the defendant at the scene of the accident and that the defendant said 'he was sorry, that his brakes gave way.' Mrs. Eleanor Mintzer testified on cross-examination that the defendant told the policeman 'over and over again, 'My brakes went out. My brakes went out.''
The trial judge was of the opinion that the directed verdict for the defendant was required by our decision in Langville v. Glen Burnie Coach Lines, Inc., supra, but we are of the opinion that the present case is distinguishable from the Langville case. In Langville there was a rear-end collision, but the plaintiff passenger admitted that the brakes had been operating properly and that a sudden and unexpected brake failure was involved, the cause of which was such that a reasonable inspection or test of brakes would not have revealed.
In the present case, the plaintiffs' testimony indicated that there was a screeching of the brakes of the defendant's automobile just prior to the collision and that the defendant immediately thereafter stated that he was sorry that his brakes gave way or went out. It is the defendant who claimed that there was a failure of his brakes, but he did not state and the evidence of the plaintiffs does not show that there was a proper inspection and a sudden failure without warning.
The proof of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Larsen v. Romeo
...to be drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the appellants. Finneran v. Wood, 249 Md. 643, 241 A.2d 579; Mintzer v. Miller, 249 Md. 506, 240 A.2d 262; Langville v. Glen Burnie Lines, 233 Md. 181, 195 A.2d On June 22, 1966, a clear and sunny day, Larsen was driving his automobile in......
-
Miller v. Reilly
...We are unpersuaded by Fink v. East Miss. Elec. Power Assn., supra, and Ritchie v. Davison, supra. As we read Mintzer v. Miller, 249 Md. 506, 240 A.2d 262 (1968), Wood v. Johnson, supra, Langville v. Glen Burnie Lines, 233 Md. 181, 195 A.2d 717 (1963), Garfinkle v. Birnios, supra, Lehmann v.......
-
Cavallaro v. Williams
...235 (1966); accord, Currie v. United States, 201 F.Supp. 414, 417 (D.Md.1962), aff'd,312 F.2d 1 (4th Cir. 1963); Mintzer v. Miller, 249 Md. 506, 240 A.2d 262, 264 (1968). This showing by the defendant must be proven by a preponderance of the evidence. Wood, supra, 219 A.2d at 235. The court......
-
Cavallaro v. Williams, Civ. A. No. 72-1364.
...a showing of adequate inspection and sudden unexpected failure. Miller v. Reilly, 21 Md.App. 465, 319 A.2d 553 (1974); Mintzer v. Miller, 249 Md. 506, 240 A.2d 262 (1968). Proof of the accident, coupled with the defendants' explanation of brake failure, shifts to the defendant the burden of......