Porter v. Greenbrier Quarry Co.

• Decision Date: 10 June 1931
• Docket Number: 26.
• Citation: 155 A. 428,161 Md. 34
• Parties: PORTER v. GREENBRIER QUARRY CO.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

155 A. 428

161 Md. 34

PORTER v. GREENBRIER QUARRY CO.

No. 26.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

June 10, 1931

Appeal from Circuit Court, Allegany County; Albert A. Doub, Judge.

Action by George W. Porter against the Greenbrier Quarry Company. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals.

Reversed and new trial awarded.

Argued before PATTISON, URNER, ADKINS, OFFUTT, DIGGES, PARKE, and SLOAN, JJ.

Charles G. Watson, of Frostburg, for appellant.

George Henderson, of Cumberland (Richard F. McMullen, of Cumberland on the brief), for appellee.

URNER J.

The testimony offered by the plaintiff in this case admits of the inference that he was struck and injured by a light motortruck, attached to the rear end of a larger truck, which passed him as he was walking, in the same direction, along the concrete shoulder of a public roadway. He testified that the leading truck "passed close by him," that "something bumped him from the back and after that he knew nothing for some time," and that he did not look back before the accident and "saw nothing hooked to the large truck." One of the witnesses for the plaintiff who was following him on his way from the defendant's quarry, where both were employed, and where they had just finished their work for the day, stated that the plaintiff was ten or fifteen feet ahead of him and walking about the middle of the concrete shoulder on the right-hand side of the road, and that, as the front truck passed, the witness turned to look for a companion, and the next instant he saw the plaintiff "doubled up under the axle of the hind truck," which "was running on all four wheels probably four feet behind the lead truck." Another workman, who had just joined the last-quoted witness at the time of the accident, testified that he saw the plaintiff "going up the road about midways of the shoulder" and did not see him "do anything," but saw him under the rear truck "only a second or two" after the witness saw him walking in the course described.

It is undisputed that, if the plaintiff was in fact injured under the circumstances indicated in his testimony at the trial below, there would be a legally sufficient basis for the pending suit. Negligence in the operation of the defendant's truck could be rationally inferred from the action of the driver in guiding the front truck so close to the edge of the road, where the plaintiff was rightfully walking, as to expose him to danger of injury from an outward swerve of the truck which was being towed. It is clear also that contributory negligence could not be conclusively imputed to the plaintiff for a failure to take precautions against the possibility that another truck might be attached to the rear end of the one which was passing him closely but safely. Biogini v. Steynen, 124 Md. 369, 92 A. 806; Mears v. McElfish, 139 Md. 81, 114 A. 701. The withdrawal of the case from the jury, of which the only exception in the record complains, is said in the appellee's brief to have been influenced by the view that the contradicting and impeaching evidence adduced by the plaintiff conclusively neutralized the probative effect of the plaintiff's testimony.

It was proved by the defendant that the plaintiff, while testifying before the State Industrial Accident Commission, in support of a claim under the Workmen's Compensation Act (Code Pub. Gen. Laws 1924, art. 101, as amended), for the injury here in question, which was disallowed because the accident did not occur in the course of his employment by the defendant, stated that he attempted to climb on the leading truck as it was slowly passing, but fell to the ground and was run over by the rear truck and thus sustained the injury for which he claimed compensation. A similar description of the accident was given by one of the defendant's employees who was on the seat of the rear truck, but was not steering it, as, according to his testimony, it was closely attached to the forward truck and was being drawn with its front wheels lifted above the road surface.

There was no denial by the plaintiff of his prior inconsistent testimony, but he asserted that he had no recollection as to what he stated at the hearing before the State Industrial Accident Commission, because it was not until later that his "mind cleared up right," from the effects of the accident. The wife of the plaintiff testified that for at least five or six months after that misfortune "he was out of his head," but his attending physicians, and the attorney who represented him before the commission, testified that his mental condition was normal at that period. The record of his examination before the commission tends to refute the contention that his mind was then impaired. There is properly no contention that the mistaken and unsuccessful proceeding before the commission precludes the plaintiff from maintaining this common-law action. 9 R. C. L. 962; 20 C.J. 21, 25; Rasst v. Morris, 133 Md. 187, 104 A. 412.

While the evidence produced by the defendant was unquestionably strong, and was doubtless convincing to the trial court, it was offered in refutation of testimony of the plaintiff which, if believed by the jury, would admit of a verdict in his favor. The question as to the legal sufficiency of the plaintiff's testimony, and of his right to have the case submitted to the jury, is not affected by the strength of the opposing proof, nor does the fact that the plaintiff made prior inconsistent statements...