Wingert v. Cohill

• Decision Date: 29 April 1920
• Docket Number: 13.
• Citation: 110 A. 857,136 Md. 399
• Parties: WINGERT v. COHILL.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

110 A. 857

136 Md. 399

WINGERT v. COHILL.

No. 13.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

April 29, 1920

Appeal from Circuit Court, Washington County; Robert R. Henderson Judge.

"To be officially reported."

Action by S. Rinehart Cohill against Martha A. Wingert. From judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Argued before BOYD, C.J., and BRISCOE, THOMAS, PATTISON, URNER STOCKBRIDGE, and ADKINS, JJ.

Henry F. Wingert, of Hagerstown (Harvey R. Spessard and Miller Wingert, both of Hagerstown, on the brief), for appellant.

J Augustine Mason, of Hagerstown (Mason & Mason, of Hagerstown, on the brief), for appellee.

STOCKBRIDGE J.

Miss Martha A. Wingert lived just off from the state highway, known as the Western pike, and about two miles west of Hagerstown, in Washington county. Access to her dwelling from the pike was by means of a private lane, which led off from the pike. On the 12th of April, 1919, she was returning home in an automobile, which she was driving, the machine being headed towards Hagerstown. Just west of the entrance to the Wingert lane a drainage ditch crossed the pike, and there was on the margin of the pike at either end of the ditch a culvert for the protection of those using the highway. Further to the west there was a slight rise of grade for a distance in the neighborhood of 500 feet. Following Miss Wingert's car was the car of the plaintiff, Mr. Cohill, and as he passed the crest of the rise, also headed toward Hagerstown, he had full view of, and did see, the car of Miss Wingert ahead of him. He was on his way from Hancock to Baltimore to keep an engagement in the latter city, and was running at a speed of from 20 to 25 miles per hour. Miss Wingert's car was proceeding at a much less speed, somewhere from 12 to 15 miles an hour, as she was getting ready to turn from the pike into the lane leading to her home, and by reason of the acute angle made by the intersection of the lane and pike the turn was necessarily a short one. The plaintiff testified that he gave three signals, by means of the horn on his machine, of his intention to pass Miss Wingert, but there is no evidence to show whether these signals were or were not heard in Miss Wingert's car. Soon after he had made the signals with his horn, he observed Miss Wingert's car drawing closer to the right side of the road, and he then increased the speed of his own car for the purpose of passing. There was a distance of 6 to 8 feet between the end of the culvert and the side of the Wingert lane, and as she made this sharp turn she held out her hand as a warning that she was about to cross the pike. Just how far behind her at that moment Mr. Cohill was is not quite clear, evidently not very far. The extended hand was observed by John Caddie, who was riding on the rear seat of the Cohill car, and he describes the relative position as being but 10 feet behind Miss Wingert's car; but the distance must have been somewhat greater, inasmuch as the rear car must have had between that and the leading car the 6 or 7 feet between the Wingert lane and the culvert, together with the length of the culvert itself. But whatever the distance in actual feet was, it was close enough behind that, as Mr. Cohill swung his car across to the right-hand side of the road in an endeavor to pass behind Miss Wingert's car, the rear wheel on the right side of the machine which he was driving came in contact with the end of the culvert, tearing off the rear wheel, displacing the tank, throwing the engine of his car out of place and backward, and otherwise damaging his machine, and it is to recover for these injuries to the car that the present case was brought.

There is one matter of evidence not yet alluded to. Mr. Seibert, a motor vehicle officer, who arrived on the scene about five minutes after the accident, testified that there was a skidding track plainly observable for 159 feet back of the culvert, the collision with which caused the damage.

There was testimony given as to the distance within which a car could be stopped by the application of the brake at two or three different speeds, as the so-called skid tracks might be deemed as evidence tending to show the endeavor made on the part of Mr. Cohill to stop his car and so prevent the accident, or as evidence tending to show his speed to have been greater than he had testified. The road was in good condition and dry, yet Mr. Seibert testified that the marks were plainly visible. These constitute in brief the leading facts brought out in the evidence.

There is but one bill of exceptions in the record, and that was reserved to the action of the court upon the prayers.

The plaintiff offered three prayers, the first and third of which were granted, and the second was rejected; but, as this is the...