Aronstamn v. Coffey

Per Curiam. This is yet another case in which there was a collision between a child and an automobile in a public street. The appellants, Joseph Henry Aronstamn (five years and eleven months old at the time of the accident) and his father, were plaintiffs in the trial court. They here appeal an adverse verdict, complaining relative to the court’s instructions.

For procedural reasons, the appeal will be dismissed. The accident in question took place on December 7r 1965, when a pickup truck operated by the appellee, Ivan Moore Coffey, was proceeding in a southerly direction on Hillsway Avenue in Baltimore County. The accident took place a short distance north of Mantle Street in an area where the speed limit is 25 miles per hour. After a jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendant, plaintiff made a motion for a new trial.

The motion was overruled. An appeal to this Court was entered a number of days later. As of the time of appeal no final judgment had been entered, although the clerk should have entered judgment. Therefore, the appeal must be dismissed, since the appeal was from a judgment nisi.

Hawkins v. GMAC, 250 Md. 146, 148 , 242 A. 2d 120 (1968); Merlands Club v. Messall, 238 Md. 359 , 208 A. 2d 687 (1965); and Md., Del. & Va. Rwy. Co. v. Johnson, 129 Md. 412 , 99 A. 600 (1916). To avoid the expense and delay of another appeal, however, we shall indicate our views pursuant to the authority of Maryland Rule 885.

The trial judge (Raine, J.) gave a fair, full and com ⁴⁹ prehensive instruction to the jury. The plaintiffs requested', numerous detailed instructions. On appeal it is urged that the trial judge erred in failing to grant approximately a dozen of those instructions. Much of what Chief Judge Bruñe said for the Court in Lemons v. Chicken Processors, 223 Md. 362 , 164 A. 2d 703 (1960), is here relevant: “This brings us back to the basic question— whether the plaintiff was entitled to a specific instruction based upon the size, weight and unwieldiness of the tractor-trailer.

If the trial court had undertaken to discuss the facts in detail in the charge to the jury, we may assume that an instruction along the lines requested, not overemphasizing any one factor or carrying the implication of any higher degree of care being required, would have been proper and, indeed, should have been given. But in the instant case, the trial judge did not give a charge reviewing the facts in detail, and we do not think that he was bound to do so. Sometimes a charge embodying a particular rule of law may be necessary in order to prevent an abstract, general charge which is granted, and which may in itself be a correct charge, from being misleading.. State, Use of Taylor v. Barlly, 216 Md. 94, 99 , 140 A. 2d 173 .

In the present case, however, we find no such situation. The type of charge to be given—whether detailed or