Baltimore Transit Co. v. Mitchell

Henderson, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The appellee obtained a judgment for $2,500.00 in an action for personal injuries and damage to his automobile, sustained when a streetcar struck the rear end of his vehicle. The case was tried before the court and a jury. The appeal challenges the sufficiency of the evidence of negligence, the refusal to grant certain instructions, and the sufficiency of the evidence of permanent injuries.

The plaintiff was driving north on Harford Road at about 4 P. M. on a dry, clear day, and passed a streetcar on the right-hand side on or near Herring Run Bridge. He testified that he was travelling at about 25 to 30 miles an hour, the streetcar at about 20. The bridge is about 555 feet long, and there is a stop light about 340 feet beyond the northern end of the bridge, where Walther Avenue branches off. He testified that after he cleared the streetcar by 8 to 15 car -lengths, he pulled into the left-hand lane, where the tracks were, so that cars coming behind him might turn right into Walther Avenue.

He first testified that he passed the streetcar at the center of the bridge, later at the northern end. He testified that he was completely on the tracks at a point about half way between the northern end of the bridge and the intersection. The light turned amber, and then red, and he ³⁴⁹ came to a gradual stop. After he had been completely stopped for three or four seconds, the streetcar struck with a hard impact.

His car was pushed from 5 to 8 car lengths. On cross-examination he testified he had completely passed the streetcar in the middle of the bridge and was straddling the tracks at the northern end. At one point he said he passed the streetcar in the center of the bridge and at another that he had not. Pointing to these verbal inconsistencies, the appellant asks us to rule that his testimony is too vague and contradictory to be worthy of belief.

We find no merit in the contention. The jury might well believe that he was confused as to the exact point where he passed the streetcar, or where he pulled onto the tracks, and still believe his statement, which involves no contradiction, that he was straddling the tracks at a point at least 170 feet south of the stop light, that he came gradually to a full stop and remained standing for 3 or 4 seconds prior to the collision. And if this is accepted as true, the jury might well find, as they did, that the cause of the accident was the failure of the motorman to observe the changing light and to bring the streetcar to a stop so as to avoid striking the overtaken vehicle. In all of the cases cited by the appellant the contradictory testimony went to a vital point.

That is not true in the instant case. Cf. Gavin v. Tinkler, 170 Md. 461, 465 . It is quite immaterial, in testing the sufficiency of the evidence on behalf of the plaintiff to warrant the submission of the case to the jury, that the defendant offered evidence contradicting the plaintiff’s testimony.

The defendant requested instructions that the motorman had a right to assume that the automobile driver would not leave