Bregenzer v. Hutzler

Constable, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The appellee in this case recovered a judgment against the appellant in a case for damages for injuries to himself and automobile received in a collision between the automobiles of each, occasioned by the .alleged negligent management of that of the appellant. The case was tried before the Court, sitting as judge and jury. The collision occurred in Baltimore County at the intersection of Falls road and Lake avenue.

At this point Falls road is practically level and runs north and south. Lake avenue runs from the east to Falls road, where it ends, making a sharp descent as it approaches Falls roads. On the southeast corner of the intersection there is a store building ³⁸⁵ ■which obstructs the view of those traveling to the north on Falls road to objects on Lake avenue, and, of course, obstructs the view of one traveling to the west on Lake avenue to objects to the south of the intersection of Falls road. The testimony was conflicting as to the manner and cause of the collision; hut the testimony offered by the appellee and the other occupants of his car, two relatives and a chauffeur, was in substance that they were running north on the extreme right-hand side of Falls road at a speed of 15 or 18 miles an hour.

When they approached Lake avenue the car was slowed down to 10 or 12 miles an hour, and the horn blown. Just as they reached Lake avenue they saw the car of appellant running at 20 or 25 miles an hour coming down the avenue making directly at them on the southeast comer. To avoid the collision, which seemed certain because they were so close upon one another, the car of appellee was swerved to the left in the endeavor to allow the car of appellant to pass on right of appellee; hut the appellee’s car was struck at about the right rear wheel and upset, fastening all the occupants beneath. The car of appellee was a seven-passenger touring car of the Packard make, and had cost the appellee $5,000 six months before.

An expert mechanic from the shop of the manufacturer testified, after having examined the car the day of the accident, that it would have cost $1,000 to have repaired the broken and injured parts, giving in detail the broken parts and the cost price of each. The appellee traded the broken car in for a new one, at a valuation of $2,500. That the car was in excellent condition before the accident. One thumb of appellee was broken in three places, cannot he flexed, and