Peterson v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.

• Decision Date: 05 June 1969
• Docket Number: No. 258,258
• Citation: 254 A.2d 198,254 Md. 137
• Parties: Gordon Willis PETERSON et al. v. GOODYEAR TIRE AND RUBBER COMPANY et al.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

Page 137

254 Md. 137

254 A.2d 198

Gordon Willis PETERSON et al. v. GOODYEAR TIRE AND RUBBER COMPANY et al.

No. 258.

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

June 5, 1969.

Theodore B. Cornblatt and Archibland Eccleston, III, Baltimore, for appellants.

David M. Buffington, Baltimore (Sidney G. Leech, Baltimore, on the brief), for appellees.

Before HAMMOND, C. J., and BARNES, FINAN, SINGLEY and SMITH, JJ.

FINAN, Judge.

This is an action for personal injuries and property damage sustained by Gordon W. Peterson as a result of a collision between an automobile which he was operating and a truck owned by the Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company and operated by its agent, Earl D. Newton. Suit was filed in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County by Peterson and his wife as plaintiffs (appellants) against Goodyear and Newton as defendants (appellees). The American Casualty Company joined in the suit as a party plaintiff in order to recover moneys paid to Peterson under the Workmen's Compensation Act. After a four day trial, the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiffs in the amount of seventy dollars ($70.00). The trial court denied plaintiffs' motion for a new trial and they bring this appeal.

The following facts gave rise to the cause of action: On August 16, 1966, at approximately 9:20 A.M., Gordon W. Peterson was driving his automobile in a westerly direction on Eastern Boulevard near the intersection of Old Eastern Avenue in Baltimore County, Maryland, when he became involved in an accident with a truck owned by the appellee Goodyear and driven by its employee, the appellee Newton. Goodyear's truck was also proceeding in a westerly direction on Eastern Boulevard and was in the process of moving from the center lane to the right curb lane when it struck the Peterson automobile which was being operated in the right hand lane. The right front bumper of the appellee Goodyear's truck struck the side of the left front fender of Peterson's car, causing a gash in the fender. This damage was repaired at a cost of approximately seventy dollars ($70.00).

Mr. Peterson also claimed that he sustained an aggravation of a pre-existing back condition and that he became obligated for medicine, hospital and medical attention as a result of that aggravation. This appeal revolves around the sole issue of whether or not the trial court committed reversible error in refusing to grant the appellants' requested instruction on damages (as to the law applicable), in cases involving the question of an aggravation of an alleged pre-existing physical disability.

There was a great deal of testimony at the trial which related specifically to whether the accident caused an aggravation of Peterson's pre-existing back condition. The plaintiff Peterson, the police officer who investigated the accident, the defendant Newton, and the manager of the Goodyear store where Newton worked, all gave conflicting testimony as to whether or not Peterson's car had jumped the curb after having been struck; it was Peterson's claim that it had, and that in so doing it caused his body to be 'bounced around inside' the car. Four medical experts testified at the trial, three on behalf of Peterson, and one on behalf of the defendants. The plaintiffs' experts all felt that the accident involved in this case was sufficient to activate a pre-existing back condition but on cross-examination they admitted that this opinion was based on the assumption that Peterson's statement, that he had experienced no back difficulty prior to the date of the accident, was true. None of these three doctors had examined or treated Peterson prior to the accident.

The defendants' medical witness was the doctor who had treated Peterson for his back problems prior to the accident and had also examined him after the accident occurred. It was his opinion that Peterson had a slowly developing degenerative disease of the back and that he was organically the same after the accident as before it.

At the conclusion of the case, the trial court denied all written instructions offered by counsel and charged the jury on damages, in pertinent part, as follows:

'If you find for the Plaintiff husband, Gordon Willis Peterson, then, in considering and estimating the damages, you are entitled to take into consideration the state of health and physical condition of the Plaintiff prior to his injuries and in consequence of his injuries. You should consider the physical and mental suffering to which he may have been subjected to by reason of the injuries, as well as medical expenses, hospital expenses, pharmaceutical and other monetary losses incurred as a result of the injury to which he has been subjected. You shall consider whether or not these injuries are permanent and how far, if at all, they are calculated to disable him from engaging in those activities and occupations which, in the absence of such injuries, he would otherwise have been capable of engaging. You are to take into consideration the loss of wages and you are to take into consideration, if any, to the Plaintiff, the amount of damages to the vehicle.

'Taking into consideration these matters, you should award, if you find in favor of the Plaintiffs, such damages as in your opinion would be fair and just compensation for the injuries, expenses and losses which you may find were suffered as a consequence of the accident. You are to keep in mind that these damages are to be just exactly what I have said, that is, fair and just conpensation. They are not to be of a punitive nature. They are not intended to punish the Defendant and they are not intended to reward the Plaintiff. They are intended to be fair and just compensation for the injuries and expenses.'

With these instructions the jury returned a verdict for seventy dollars ($70.00), the amount of the damage to Peterson's car.

The jury having found in favor of the appellants (plaintiffs below) on the question of the appellees' (defendants below) liability, then they were entitled to recover for all damages that they sustained, even though the husband plaintiff may have been susceptible to injury because of a previous infirm condition. We now come to the question of whether the appellants were entitled to the following instruction which they requested and the court denied:

'The Court instructs the jury that the fact that the plaintiff, Gordon Willis Peterson, may have had a pre-existing condition which made him peculiarly susceptible to the injury complained of in this action would not excuse the defendants from the consequences of their wrongs if the jury finds that to be the case.

'If is the common observation of all that the effects of personal physical injuries depend much upon the peculiar conditions and tendancies of the persons injured; and what may produce but slight and comparatively uninjurious consequences in one case may produce consequences of the most serious and distressing character in another. This being so, a wrong doer is not permitted to relieve himself from responsibility for the consequences of his act by showing that the injury would have been of less severity if it had been inflicted upon anyone else of a large majority of the human family.'

It is the appellants' contention that they were entitled to the above instruction because the issue of the aggravation of the husband's pre-existing injury was the theory of their case...