Peroti v. Williams

• Citation: 258 Md. 663,267 A.2d 114
• Decision Date: 09 July 1970
• Docket Number: No. 423,423
• Parties: Dorothy PEROTI v. Bill Ward WILLIAMS et al.
• Court: Court of Appeals of Maryland

Page 663

258 Md. 663

267 A.2d 114

Dorothy PEROTI v. Bill Ward WILLIAMS et al.

No. 423.

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

July 9, 1970.

Cooper C. Graham, Baltimore (Henry L. Belsky and London, Potler & Belsky, Baltimore, on the brief), for appellant.

Gilbert A. Hoffman, Baltimore (Frank X. Gallagher, Baltimore, on the brief), for Bill Ward Williams and the Yellow Cab Co.

David D. Patton, Baltimore (Lloyd A. Dreiling, Baltimore, on the brief), for Robert Lee Pompey.

Argued Before HAMMOND, C. J., and McWILLIAMS, FINAN, SINGLEY, SMITH and DIGGES, JJ.

DIGGES, Judge.

Appellant, Dorothy Peroti, as plaintiff instituted a personal injury suit in the Superior Court of Baltimore City. Judge Jones directed a verdict against defendant, Robert Lee Pompey as to Liability only. The case went to the jury on the issue of damages as to all defendants, and as to negligence on the part of defendants Bill Ward Williams and The Yellow Cab Company. The Jury returned a verdict in favor of all defendants. After denial of a motion for a new trial judgments were entered in their favor for costs. Appellant seeks redress in this Court for what she claims was the obvious failure of the jury to follow the court's instructions.

The origin of this litigation was an automobile collision in Baltimore on July 20, 1966. Appellant Mrs. Peroti had engaged a taxicab owned by appellee Yellow Cab Company and driven by appellee Bill Ward Williams. Mrs. Peroti claims she directed Williams to take her and her grandson to an address on Guilford Avenue; Williams says the direction was more general, North and Guilford Avenues. In any case after Williams had driven east on North Avenue and passed the intersection of North and Guilford he became aware that Mrs. Peroti wished to go to the specific address. After some discussion about whether he could circle the block, Williams began slowly backing up in the curb lane of North Avenue. He testified he could see appellee Pompey coming south on Guilford, but assumed he would obey the stop sign posted at the corner. Pompey testified he intended to turn right onto North Avenue. He said he stopped for a few minutes at the stop sign, and after looking to the left and glancing to the right pulled out into North Avenue. Pompey's left front fender struck Williams' cab on the right rear fender. Both drivers described the impact as light, and an investigating officer testified the damage was slight to each vehicle. Mrs. Peroti without attempting to describe the force of the impact stated she was lifted from her seat 'forward and sideways.' She stated that immediately following the impact she had pains in her pelvis, neck, fingers, chest, back and legs. An ambulance arrived on the scene, but refused to transport Mrs. Peroti to a hospital, apparently because the attendant did not think her injuries, if any, were serious. Williams drove her to Johns Hopkins Hospital, but she decided not to remain and without receiving treatment hired an ambulance to take her to Provident Hospital. She remained there sixteen days, but left without being discharged by simply calling a taxicab (not Williams'). A Dr. Caguin treated Mrs. Peroti both at Provident Hospital and subsequent to her stay there.

Mrs. Peroti claimed numerous injuries as the direct result of the cab accident. She contended she received a fractured rib and injury to the lower back, and in addition an aggravation of a pre-existing condition, 'inhangs' or achalasia of the esophagus. Dr. Caguin Confirmed that he diagnosed the above-mentioned complaints when Mrs. Peroti entered Provident Hospital, and based on his examination and the history she gave, stated it was his opinion that the fracture and back strain were caused, and the achalasia was aggravated, by the car accident.

Appellee Yellow Cab Company and Williams produced as an expert witness Dr. Sam Legum. He testified that he could perceive no objective evidence of injury at the time he examined Mrs. Peroti two months after the accident. He thought her symptoms were 'magnified' and she had a low pain threshold, but that in view of the history she gave and the hospitalization it was fair to conclude she had some degree of soft tissue injury in the lower back and pelvis.

Appellee Pompey contended that Mrs. Peroti suffered no actual injury from the accident. Appellant both in a pre-trial deposition and on cross-examination at trial related a rather bizarre string of previous injuries and occurrences. Mrs. Peroti testified she had contracted arthritis in her left shoulder while standing guard duty in the army. Also during her stint in the armed services she said she had been kidnapped. She said she had been involved in two separate bus accidents in New York City, one in 1958 in which she injured her head and back; and another in 1959 which re-injured her head and aggravated the back injuries. She testified she had received medical treatment for those accidents, including hospitalization and wearing of a back brace. In 1962 she related a detective had beaten her severely and kicked her. She also reported that at some unspecified time in Philadelphia two uniformed policemen had robbed her and knocked her to the ground causing injury to her left knee. She claimed that automobiles had twice tried to run her down, causing her to jump out of the way and further hurt her back. Mrs. Peroti testified she was receiving a government pension for not 'facing facts to the truth.' She admitted having been treated by Dr. Caguin before the accident, but denied any of that treatment was for back ailments.

Appellees presented evidence to show that Dr. Caguin had treated Mrs. Peroti on four occasions previous to the accident and at least two of these visits were for leg, neck or abdominal pain. Mrs. Peroti never gave him any medical history which indicated she had earlier back injuries. Dr. Caguin on cross-examination also said that the fractured rib revealed by an X-ray the day of the accident could have occurred as much as two weeks before and the picture would have still looked the same. That same X-ray report showed 'residual radiopic medium' in Mrs. Peroti's spinal column. Dr. Caguin stated this indicated a milogram X-ray 'tracing,' used in spinal injury cases, had been performed earlier. Dr. Legum, the examining physician for appellees Yellow Cab and Williams, indicated that Mrs. Peroti gave him a history which attributed her difficulties to the car collision without notation of any other trauma to her back.

At the close of all the evidence Judge Jones decided plaintiff had shown conclusively that defendant Pompey violated the 'boulevard law,' Code (1957, 1967 Repl.Vol.), article 66 1/2, section 233, and that this violation was a cause of the accident. There being no evidence of contributory negligence on plaintiff's part, Judge Jones ruled Pompey was negligent as a matter of law. Without deciding the question we shall assume this conclusion of Judge Jones was proper. ¹ If error exists it is in appellant's favor on this point and she has no right on appeal to complain. However, Judge Jones went further and in her formal verbal ruling granted plaintiff's motion for a directed verdict 'that Pompey was liable.' The clerk, in accordance with Maryland Rule 522 c, made a docket entry that read 'verdict in favor of plaintiff against defendant Robert Lee Pompey under instruction of the court as to liability only' (emphasis supplied). We conclude this was error. In Richardson v. Boato, 207 Md. 301, 114 A.2d 49 (1955) there was a negligence action for injuries allegedly suffered in an automobile collision. The negligence of defendant was apparent, but there was sharp dispute over the extent and cause of plaintiff's injuries. Pl...