Dersookian v. Helmick

Smith, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The absence in the District of Columbia of something similar to our Unsatisfied Claim and Judgment Fund causes a search for an otherwise possibly obscure defendant with assets, and a theory of law by which that defendant can be forced to make the plaintiff whole, thus producing this litigation. Appellant, Hamo Dersookian (Dersookian), and The Travelers Insurance Company each sued Paul Martin Hammer, Jr. (Hammer) and appellees, Lowell Helmick (Helmick) and Jack Amatucci Chevrolet, Inc. (sometimes known as Tom’s Chevrolet). The action was dismissed as to Hammer when they were unable to effect service.

Summary judgment was granted in favor of Helmick and Tom’s Chevrolet by Judge Shearin in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County. Only Dersookian appealed. We shall affirm Judge Shearin’s action. Tom’s Chevrolet was located at 11416 Georgia Avenue in Wheaton, Maryland.

On the evening of April 5, 1967, Helmick left his car at Tom’s Chevrolet for minor repairs. The service area was surrounded on three sides by a seven foot high anchor fence with barbed wire on top and on the fourth side by the wall of the garage building. Gates to the area were secured with locks and chains. Helmick left the key in the car.

Someone removed the Helmick car during the night of April 5. It was not recovered prior to the time it was involved in a collision with the Dersookian vehicle at the intersection of Taylor and 10th Streets, N.E., in the District of Columbia around 11:00 P.M. on April 10, five days after Helmick left the vehicle at Tom’s Chevrolet. It was then operated by Hammer, the alleged thief, having been pursued by a police car at speeds up to ninety miles per hour. Dersookian is well aware of the fact that he must walk ⁶³⁰ a tight rope of a kind in order to establish liability here.

In Liberto v. Holfeldt, 221 Md. 62 , 155 A. 2d 698 (1959), the action was based on a violation of the statute requiring removal of the ignition switch key from a motor vehicle when it is permitted to stand unattended. The defendant had left the key in her car when she went into an animal hospital. When she returned, the car was gone. Five days later the vehicle was involved in an accident at Monroe and Pratt Streets in Baltimore, the location of the animal hospital having been at 3015 Greenmount Avenue in Baltimore.

There was an attempt to hold the owner of the vehicle responsible for her negligence for not having removed the ignition key. In an opinion by Judge Horney this Court said: “[W]e hold as have a majority of the courts in other jurisdictions that the injury incurred by the plaintiff was too remote both as to time [‘five days later’] and space [‘a considerable distance across the city’] from the negligent act of the defendant in not removing the ignition switch key. * * * In the recent case of Corinti v. Wittkopp, 355 Mich. 170 , 93 N.W.2d 906 (1959), the Court in interpreting the effect of a statute almost identical with [Code (1957), Art. 66l/2 J § 247, stated [at p. 909]q: ‘To our knowledge, no court has yet held such a statute * * * to impose upon a driver a duty to remove his keys running to the benefit of any person whom a thief or his successor in possession might meet and injure hours, days or weeks after the theft.’ “* * ■:= The violation of the statute must be the proximate cause of the injury, and if he fails to prove that fact, the plaintiff cannot sustain his cause of action. Austin v. Buettner, 211 Md. 61 , 124 A. 2d 793 (1956). Again, we agree with the majority of the courts and hold that in this case the negligence of the defendant was ⁶³¹ not the proximate cause of the injury both on the basis that it was not foreseeable that the thief would be involved in an accident five days later and that the negligence of the thief was an independent intervening cause which was in fact the proximate cause of the accident.

Anderson v. Theisen, 231 Minn. 369 , 43 N.W.2d 272 (1950); Annot., 51 A.L.R.2d 633 , 663 (1957). See also Bloom v. Good Humor Ice Cream Co., 179 Md. 384, 387 , 18 A. 2d 592 (1941) [where negligence of one person is merely passive and potential and negligence of another is the moving and effective cause of the injury, the latter is the proximate cause and fixes the liability]. “While it is true that duty and causation are normally questions of fact for the trier of the facts to decide, nevertheless, when the facts are not disputed and it is certain that reasonable minds could draw but one inference from such facts, as in the present case, the issue may be resolved as a matter of law.” Id. at 66-67. In his effort to avoid the consequences of Liberto , Dersookian contends that the tort in question took place in the District of Columbia, that Maryland applies the substantive law of the place of wrong to a suit brought in Maryland to recover damages suffered in an out-of-state accident, and that under District of Columbia law he is entitled to recover. He further contends that under District of Columbia law the question of whether Tom’s Chevrolet failed to adequately protect its parking lot, thereby allowing the bailed automobile to be stolen, and the question of whether that negligence was the proximate cause of Dersookian’s injuries “in [an] accident with the thief a few hours later 1 and a few miles from the service lot, are for the jury to determine and not appropriate for disposition on motion for summary judgment”. ⁶³² Judge Oppenheimer said for this Court in White v. King, 244 Md. 348 , 223 A. 2d 763 (1966) : “This Court has consistently followed the rule that when an accident occurs in another state substantive rights of the parties, even though they