Packer to Use of Farm Bureau Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Hampden Transfer & Storage Co.

• Decision Date: 23 February 1955
• Docket Number: No. 92,92
• Citation: 111 A.2d 849,206 Md. 407
• Parties: Abraham PACKER and Gertrude Packer, His Wife, To Their Own Use and To the Use of FARM BUREAU MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE CO. v. HAMPDEN TRANSFER & STORAGE COMPANY and Edwin Albert Parrish.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

Page 407

206 Md. 407

111 A.2d 849

Abraham PACKER and Gertrude Packer, His Wife, To Their Own Use and To the Use of FARM BUREAU MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE CO. v. HAMPDEN TRANSFER & STORAGE COMPANY and Edwin Albert Parrish.

No. 92.

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

Feb. 23, 1955.

Preston A. Pairo and Phillips L. Goldsborough, III, Baltimore (Preston A Pairo, Jr. and Clark & Smith, Baltimore, on the brief), for appellants.

Walter V. Harrison and Webster C. Tall, Baltimore, for appellee.

Before BRUNE, C. J., and DELAPLAINE, COLLINS, HENDERSON and HAMMOND, JJ.

COLLINS, Judge.

This is an appeal from a judgment for costs rendered in favor of the defendants below, appellees here; and on a counter claim for appellees against appellants for $218.94, with interest and costs.

Roland Avenue in Baltimore City runs approximately north and south. It is a divided highway, having two vehicular roadways each approximately 34 feet wide, and each accommodating three lanes of traffic. These two roadways are divided by a grass plot approximately 18 feet wide. The roadway on the east side of Roland Avenue is for traffic proceeding north and that on the west side is for traffic proceeding south. Cold Spring Lane is approximately 36 feet in width and accommodates two lanes of traffic in each direction. It runs east and west and crosses Roland Avenue at approximately right angles. A traffic light is suspended over the center of the south bound lane of Roland Avenue which controls south bound traffic. Another traffic light is suspended over the center of the north bound lane of Roland Avenue which controls north bound traffic. It appears to be an admitted fact in this case that these two traffic lights operate simultaneously and were in operation at the time of the collision here. When the lights permit traffic to move on Roland Avenue, they prohibit the movement of vehicles on Cold Spring Lane. On the roadway are curving painted lines leading into the crossover area at the intersection from the inside north bound and south bound traffic lanes of Roland Avenue. These lines are intended to indicate the place in which vehicles turning left from Roland Avenue should stop so as not to obstruct the passage of traffic on Roland Avenue moving straight across the intersection.

Between 6:10 and 6:15 P.M. on April 27, 1951, Mrs. Gertrude Packer, one of the appellants, was driving her husband's automobile from west to east on Cold Spring Lane. She testified that when quite a distance from Roland Avenue she saw that the light was green on Roland Avenue. About five feet before she entered the south bound lane of Roland Avenue, traveling between twenty and twenty-five miles an hour, she saw that the light was still green and entered. As she reached the grass plot separating the north and south bound lanes she saw three automobiles stopped in the north bound lane of Roland Avenue at the intersection, presumably waiting for the traffic light to change. The automobile in the north bound lane nearest her and the grass plot was Mr. Ingall's, the second automobile in the middle was Mr. White's, and the third automobile next to the east curb was that of Mr. Parrish, one of the appellees. She continued over the north bound lane and when she was practically across she saw the appellee's automobile coming toward her at a distance of about two feet. The front of the Parrish automobile struck her right door and rear fender. She had only one door on the right side of her car. She continued to cross the remaining portion of the north bound lane and collided with a tree about thirty to forty feet east of Roland Avenue.

Mr. William R. Semans testified that he was standing, with his dog, at the southwest corner of Roland Avenue and Cold Spring Lane. He saw Mrs. Packer's car enter the south driveway of Roland Avenue on a green light moving about fifteen to twenty miles an hour. When she reached the center of the grass plot dividing the north and south bound lanes the light changed from green to yellow to red. He said: 'That light runs awfully fast, so when you're in the center you won't get across, in other words the interchange is not the normal interchange. * * * It went green, yellow, red.' He said when she was in the center of the grass plot the light went yellow. There was no change in the light at all before Mrs. Packer reached the center of the grass plot. He further said that when the north bound traffic light is green, the south bound traffic light is also green. He saw a number of automobiles standing in the north bound lane waiting for the light to change. The Parrish car went ahead of the other two automobiles. He did not see the Ingall or White automobiles move at that time.

Mr. John White, operating the White automobile, testified that he was north bound in the center lane of Roland Avenue and stopped at Cold Spring Lane for the red traffic light. Another automobile had stopped opposite him next to the grass plot and Mr. Parrish's automobile was similarly stopped to his right and next to the east curb of Roland Avenue. He said when the traffic light changed: 'Well, there were three cars there and we all started and I believe there was a Mercury next to me on my left and I just, out of the corner of my eye, I saw him put on his brakes and caught the reflex and then it just occurred to me there was another automobile coming across, so I put on mine and that was it.' As to the Packer automobile, he said: 'Well, I'd say it was roughly in front of me when I saw it for the first time and put on my brakes, or just off my left front fender.' He further said that he first thought he had hit the Packer automobile because it came so close. 'I imagine I was obstructing Mr. Parrish's view at the time, because the Mercury was obstructing mine and that's why I didn't see it.' At the time he started the light was 'very definitely' green. When he started he did not see any traffic in the intersection moving east and west.

Mr. Frank Harry, called by the appellees, testified that he was driving west on Cold Spring Lane and when 150 to 200 feet from the intersection he saw the Packer automobile enter the intersection on a red light.

Mr. Parrish, one of the appellees, testified that he was driving north on the north bound roadway of Roland Avenue in the eastern most lane of traffic. When he reached Cold Spring Lane the traffic light was red. There were two other north bound automobiles which had already stopped for the light. He stopped just about even with the White automobile which had stopped to his left in the center lane. When the light turned green all three north bound automobiles started forward. The other two automobiles moved probably four to six feet and stopped. Seeing that these two automobiles had stopped, he stopped, when he saw Mrs. Packer's car enter the south bound lane of Roland Avenue on a red light. The Packer automobile continued on, 'brushing' the front of his car and struck a tree. He further said there was nothing to prevent him having a clear vision to his left.

The only question presented on this appeal relates to the instruction of the trial judge to the jury. Those parts of the instructions to which the appellants object follow. 'The Court's interpretation of this statute is that in this situation, where you have a divided highway, the person who enters the main thoroughfare, that is the divided thoroughfare, has a right of way only as far as the island, on a green signal, and should the signal change before he goes past the island then his duty is to stop and yield the right of way to north bound traffic, in this case on that thoroughfare.' Before retiring to the jury room, one of the jurors asked whether or not Roland Avenue was to be considered as one street or whether each lane was to be considered a separate street. To that question the trial judge answered: 'The court's instructions are there are really two intersections, one between the northbound lane of Roland Avenue and Cold Spring Lane and one between the southbound lane of Roland Avenue and Cold Spring Lane, each of which is controlled by a traffic light--of course they are synchronized--and under those circumstances, the Packer car, entering the southbound lane, has a right to clear that intersection, but only as far as the island, but at the island she is bound to stop if, in fact, the light in the north bound lane is red against her, and on that there is a dispute in the testimony; one side says it was red and the other side says it was green.' The appellants object to this reply by the trial judge.

The appellees agree that for the purpose of this case we should assume that Mrs. Packer entered the south bound roadway of Roland Avenue on a green light.

It is settled law in this State that a pedestrian or a vehicle starting across an intersection with a favorable signal has the right to complete the trip, even if the light changes in the middle of the passage. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Continental Baking Co., 172 Md. 24 [111 A.2d 852] 190 A. 768; Valench v. Belle Isle Cab Co., 196 Md. 118, 124, 75 A.2d 97; Heffner v. Admiral Taxi Service, 196 Md. 465, 77 A.2d 127.

The essential question, therefore, is whether this two lane intersection with two traffic lights working simultaneously is one intersection or two intersections. Code 1951, Article 66 1/2, Section 2(20), provides as follows: '(Intersection.) The area embraced within the prolongation or connection of the lateral curb lines, or if none, the lateral boundary lines of the roadways of two highways which join one another at, or approximately at, right angles, or the area within which vehicles traveling upon different highways joining at any other angle may come in conflict.' 'Roadway' is defined by Code 1951, Article 66 1/2, Section 2(46) as follows: 'That portion of a highway improved, designed, or ordinarily used for vehicular travel.' The trial judge wrote a very learned and exhaustive...