Cornias v. Pipkin

Marbury, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. James Cornias, appellant, brought a motor tort action against Zebbie Pipkin, appellee, for damages sustained when the automobile Pipkin was driving collided with the one operated by appellant. A jury found for the defendant, and appellant ap ³⁴¹ pealed from the judgment on the verdict because of the allegedly inconsistent application of the law by the trial judge in his instructions concerning the effect of a “Left Turn Lane” sign painted on the left of two northbound lanes of a dual road on which both parties were traveling when their automobiles collided. The intersection in which the accident occurred is an extremely intricate one and reference to the attached plat, which was in evidence, is worth a thousand words.

The parties were traveling north on The Alameda in Baltimore City. Both automobiles were stopped at a traffic light which controlled that portion of the intersection. Appellant was in the left lane of The Alameda intending to proceed north east in the left lane of Loch Raven Boulevard (Loch Raven), and appellee was in the right lane, intending to proceed north west on The Alameda. When the light turned green, both automobiles started forward; and because the paths they traveled crossed, there was a collision.

A “Left Turn Lane” sign was painted on the left of the two northbound lanes of The Alameda, south of The Alameda’s intersection with Loch Raven. A person in the left lane could not have made a sharp left turn because Upshire Road was one way east. The cases of appellant and his minor son, who was injured in the accident while a passenger in his father’s automobile, were tried together. The trial court denied appellant’s motions for directed verdict at the close of all the evidence.

The jury returned a verdict for appellant’s son against appellee, but returned a verdict against appellant. There was no appeal from the judgment for the son. Those portions of the trial court’s instructions which have been challenged are as follows: ^{342 343} “In considering this issue, you may consider that this ‘traffic control device’ did not require all drivers in the left lane to turn into the Alameda. It was not marked ‘Reft Turn Lane Only’; so that this plaintiff had a right to continue up Loch Raven Boulevard from the left lane of the Alameda, as long as he, the plaintiff, Mr. Cornias, exercised ordinary care under the circumstances. “You are further instructed that under the laws of the State of Maryland, a motor vehicle whose driver is intending to turn at an intersection, should remain as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or roadway upon his approach for the right turn, so that you are instructed that if you believe from the evidence in this case that there was a failure on the part of the plaintiff Cornias to observe this rule of the road and that such failure to observe was a proximate or contributing cause of the accident, then your verdict should be for the defendant Pipkin. “You are further instructed that under the laws of the State of Maryland, a vehicle driving in a marked lane of a one-way street should not change lanes without the driver indicating his intention or making sure his way was clear, so that if you believe that the accident in this case was the result of the plaintiff Cornias not to observe and make sure that the lane was clear, and he changed lanes of traffic proceeding northerly on the Alameda, if you so find, then your verdict should be for the defendant Pipkin.” The court instructed the jury that it was permissible for a person in the left lane to go either up The Alameda or Loch Raven.

Then the court instructed the jury that if it found that appellant violated the rule that a driver intending to make a right turn at an intersection had to remain as close as practicable to the right-hand curb, the jury had to find for the appellee if such violation was a proximate cause of