Burns v. Goynes

²⁹⁵ Orth, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. As the result of an accident involving an automobile owned and operated by Howard William Goynes and a mail truck owned by Royce Dean Blackburn and operated by his employee Ernest James Burns, two cases in one declaration were filed at law in the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County. Goynes individually sued Burns and Blackburn claiming $60,000 for personal injuries and property damage, and with his wife, Agnes, sued them for loss of consortium, claiming $25,000. The cases went to trial before a jury on a general issue plea.

At the close of all the evidence the defendants moved for a directed verdict in their favor as to each case, Maryland Rule 552 a, and the motions were denied. The plaintiffs moved for directed verdicts in their favor and the trial court reserved its decisions thereon. Rule 552 c. On 9 September 1971 the jury found for the defendants and judgment nisi was entered for them against the plaintiffs for costs.

On 14 September the plaintiffs filed a motion for judgment N.O.V. or in the alternative a new trial. * 1 Rule 563 a 1 and 3. On 1 October the motion was heard. The court said it felt “it erred in not directing the matter of liability in favor of the plaintiff * * *. For that reason, the motion for a new trial will be granted.” Counsel for the plaintiffs asked the court “if the Motion for Directed Verdict which you have reserved upon has been granted and whether the new trial is for damages only?” The court replied that the new trial will be for damages only.

Counsel for the defendants inquired: “Now, Your Honor, ²⁹⁶ you now are directing a verdict for the plaintiffs in this case — is that — my understanding?” The court said: “Yes, Right.” The ultimate result was as shown by the hearing sheet signed by the trial judge as of 29 October and reflected in the docket entries under that date: “Judgment N.O.V. entered in favor of plaintiffs as of October 1, 1971. New trial awarded as to damages only.” 2 3 Burns and Blackburn appealed. The question is whether the lower court erred in granting a judgment N.O.V. in favor of Goynes, et ux, and awarding a new trial as to damages only. 3 I There was evidence by stipulation that the accident occurred on 12 February 1968 about 3:56 o’clock in the morning on Maryland Route 2 about 1000 feet south of Norfolk Road and involved an automobile driven by Goynes and a truck owned by Blackburn and driven by Burns as his agent and employee. There was evidence adduced by testimony of Goynes, Burns and Blackburn that Goynes was employed by the Baltimore City Department of Education as a maintenance man on the night shift.

He was driving his 1964 Rambler to work when the accident occurred. Blackburn was a contract mail carrier with the U.S. Post Office. He furnished trucks and drivers to carry mail and had employed Burns about 4 or 5 years as such a driver. Burns drove “the Annapolis run” six days a week, leaving the U.S. post ²⁹⁷ office terminal in Baltimore and stopping at Glen Burnie, Pasadena, Severna Park and Annapolis and on the return trip he would make additional stops for mail for the main post office in Baltimore.

On 12 February 1968 Burns was driving the 2:20 a.m. shift. His vehicle was a 1966 G.M.C. ton and a half truck, van type body. Goynes’ version of the accident was in substance that on his way to Baltimore from his home in Annapolis he was driving about 45 or 50 miles per hour in the right lane of Route 2. At about Mountain Road he saw in his rear view mirror the lights of a vehicle which he thought was a heavy duty truck in the slow lane about 200 yards behind him. “I don’t try to outrun them so I kept my speed.” The truck approached — “he was closing the gap in there too fast and I knew he was going over the limit.” The truck came up to within 7 or 8 feet of the rear of Goynes’ car and Goynes pulled over so his right wheels were on the shoulder of the road.

The vehicles remained in this relative position for a distance estimated by Goynes as about 50 yards and for a time thought by him to be 4, 5 or 6 seconds. Then the impact occurred at the bottom of a hill. The truck’s right front wheel “come over top of my bumper and over top the fender and over top [my left rear] wheel.” Goynes’ car was spun completely around, hit 4 guard rails and came to rest facing Annapolis “not quite” on the right side of the road. The truck stopped in the median strip “about a hundred feet up.” On cross-examination Goynes said he “wouldn’t know” whether the truck was in the process of passing his car at the time of the accident. “I know he hit me.

Maybe he was trying to pass but I couldn’t say — and he did hit — hit me and then he went on past me.” Burns’ version of the incident was that he was traveling in the right lane about 50 miles an hour in a 55 mile per hour zone just north of Mountain Road. “When you meet Mountain Road you go up about a mile, a mile and a half and the road curves down, goes down in like a dip like in the road. * * * When this accident ²⁹⁸ happened I come over the top of the hill and Mr. Goynes he was down — almost down to the foot of the hill and there was some cars coming on * * * the left hand side of me and as they passed I started to pass by Mr. Goynes over there — I didn’t get past him — to the — you know, to the left lane.” Burns said two cars passed him in the left lane and “as I said before and I’ll repeat it, as I went to go past the man the kingpin snapped.” 4 He explained: “When I goes to pass * * * Mr. Goynes I hear a snapping noise, from then on that was it. * * * The truck veered, it hit the other man’s car right when it snapped it throwed me up on the other man’s car.” When he heard the snap he lost a wheel. He had both hands on the wheel when he heard the snap and kept both hands on the wheel thereafter. Prior to the accident “there wasn’t anything wrong with the steering * * * because it steered alright.” After the accident “I didn’t see nothing but a wheel laying under that leaning truck. * * * It was laying underneath the truck with the tie rod still hooked to it — underneath—up next to the gas tank — about middle ways of the truck.” On cross-examination he said “when the kingpin snapped in the truck it throwed it up. * * * After the kingpin snapped it throwed it up, then the truck dropped.” He denied he heard the snapping at the same time the collision occurred. “All I can tell you is that I told you once before. When this snapping noise, that was first, and then when it popped it throwed it up and then it fell, the truck fell and the wheel went out underneath of it and it went up the road.” He claimed he was traveling about a car and a half length back of Goynes’ car.

He said he was traveling that distance behind the car because of the two cars on the left hand side — “I started to pass the man when the cars passed me.” He did not know how long he had been traveling ²⁹⁹ that close to the car in front. He was asked: “You didn’t feel that it was necessary to allow some space to get in between you and the rear of Mr. Goynes’ car before you attempted [to pass]”, and he replied: “I didn’t think anything would happen.” Pressed further he reiterated: “Like I — as I say, his car was low, I didn’t run up on him, and I was starting to hit when this — when the kingpin snapped and this wheel — it throwed it and the car hit and my truck fell. * * * That’s what I say * * * to you awhile ago.” Blackburn testified he saw his truck in the median strip shortly after the accident. The right wheel was off and was underneath the truck about where the driver would sit. It was not attached to the axle but it was attached to the tie rod.

The mileage on the truck was under 25,000 miles. He had the truck towed to his garage. About 8:00 o’clock the same morning he had his mechanic, Thomas Bosley, jack up the truck to see the extent of the damage. “We saw that we had lost a kingpin and a right wheel and a brake hose had been cut in two * * The kingpin was about an inch and an eighth in diameter and six inches long made of “solid steel.” The kingpin was broken in half. He testified that the kingpins on the truck were periodically checked to see if they should be replaced. “If there’s any break in the kingpins —when a kingpin is extremely bad, the wheel will do this [indicating it wobbles] going down the road, which will wear the tire uneven. * * * If the kingpin is not too bad to show wear on the tire, you’ll get it when the truck is jacked up by movement of the tire from the top portion to the bottom portion.

Place your hand on the tire, if it’s worn on the bottom you change it. If there’s any looseness you know the kingpins are worn. The average life of kingpins are around one hundred thousand miles.” The described procedures were a regular part of his truck maintenance program. Thomas Bosley testified that he serviced the truck during the first week of February 1968.

The servicing in- ³⁰⁰ eluded checking “the front end to see if there was any play in it or anything like that.” He checked all the wheels. He found nothing wrong with the kingpin of the right front wheel. Also he had driven the truck in question the day before the accident on the 7:00 p.m. shift of the Annapolis run and it was in good condition. “It was operating properly * * * if there had been anything the matter with it I would have done something about it.” It appeared that the truck had not been driven thereafter until Burns drove it. Bosley also testified that the truck was equipped with a governor that limited the maximum speed to 58 miles per hour.

He also described and exhibited to the jury a spindle and kingpin assembly similar to one on the truck in question. He said he had inspected the truck the morning of the accident and corroborated Blackburn’s observations. He disconnected the tie rod from the wheel of the truck. “The bottom part of the kingpin was in the spindle and the other part of the kingpin was in the axle of the truck.” The kingpin was broken in two in the portion which was within the spindle. He was asked what the effect would be of the kingpin for the right front wheel breaking as the truck was driving down the road.

He answered: “Well, it broke down here and that causes it to shut down — all the weight was on this top part and it pulled down here and pulled this up off of there and left this part — the big part of the kingpin in the axle. * * * The top one— this part of the spindle. * * * The small part was down in the bottom of the spindle. It broke there — about a quarter of an inch or a little more below this part here, and this big piece was still stuck in with the kingpin — there’s a bolt goes through — under the axle — where the bolt goes through there and holds this kingpin in the axle. * * * There wasn’t no way for that to get out. * * * It would throw it out. * * * T said the thing itself is one of the whole tire pulling out ³⁰¹ and pulling the spindle and bending the spindle out and pulling it off of the top of the kingpin. * * * And that’s what happened.” We gather from what he said that the wheel would come off when the kingpin broke. 5 He said the spindle was bent and that the bending was caused by the bottom part of the kingpin vibrating after breaking in two. II We said in Buchanan v. Galliher and Harless, 11 Md. App. 83, 87-88 , cert. denied 261 Md. 722 : “When a trial court is called upon by a motion for a directed verdict to rule upon the legal sufficiency of the evidence to require submission of any issue to a jury, the court must assume the truth of all credible evidence on that issue and of all inferences fairly deducible therefrom, and consider them in the light most favorable to the party against whom the motion is made, and if such evidence and inferences lead to conclusions from which reasonable minds could not differ, then the issue is one of law for the court and not one of fact for the jury. This rule applies with equal force, whether the motion is made by a plaintiff or by a defendant; whether the moving party or the opposing party has the burden of proving the issue ; and whether the motion goes to the opposing party’s whole case, or is partial, or is a request for a peremptory instruction on the issue.” The trial court is governed by the same considerations in determining a motion for a judgment N.O.V. Miller v. Michalek, 13 Md. App. 16, 17 , citing Wheeler v. Katzoff, 242 Md. 431, 435 . ³⁰² In the instant case, resolving all conflicts in the evidence in favor of Burns and Blackburn, and assuming the truth of all of the evidence favoring them, and the reasonable inferences which may be drawn therefrom, there were facts which a jury might legitimately have concluded to be true which would have excused them from liability.

Without entering into the realm of speculation, we think the jury may have concluded from the facts that the kingpin of the right front wheel of the truck broke as Burns pulled out to pass Goynes’ car, throwing the truck onto the rear of the car, and that it was this mechanical failure, not chargeable to Burns and Blackburn, rather than any negligent act or omission on the part of either appellant, which was the proximate cause of the accident. As to the question whether Burns was following Goynes too closely, the Court of Appeals in Rabinovitz v. Kilner, 206 Md. 455, 464 , said: “All questions of fact, such as speed, diligence of observation and the relative position of the cars at various times are, of course, for the jury.” See Pettaway v. Washington, 255 Md. 202 , 207-208 and Ghiradello v. Malina, 238 Md. 498, 505 , quoting this language. And see Brehrm v. Lorenz, 206 Md. 500 , 509 and Mitchell v. Dowdy, 184 Md. 634 , 642