Dorschel v. Tzomides

Bruns, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The principal question in this case is a familiar one — was there sufficient evidence of negligence on the part of the de ³⁴³ fendant to warrant the submission of the plaintiffs’ case to the jury. One plaintiff, Beverlee Ann Dorschel, an infant sixteen years old at the time of the accident, was a passenger in an automobile owned by her father, William E. Dorschel, the other plaintiff. The car was being driven by her mother at the time of the collision with the defendant’s automobile.

The daughter’s claim is for personal injuries; her father’s claim is for her hospital and medical expenses and for damage to his automobile. Mrs. Dorschel is not a party to the suit, and no question of contributory negligence, by imputation or otherwise, is presented. The defendant denies negligence on his own part. He also asserts that even if there were enough evidence tending to show negligence on his part, still Mrs. Dorschel’s negligence, and not his, was the proximate cause of the accident.

There was evidence to show that: 1. At about 9:30 A. M. on a weekday morning in late June, the weather being clear and dry, the defendant, Tzomides, drove his car south on the Belair Road in Baltimore City and stopped at a point some 220 or 230 feet south of Echodale Avenue to let his wife get out to go shopping. 2. Just before Mrs. Tzomides got out of the defendant’s car, Mrs. Dorschel drove her husband’s car from Echodale Avenue into the Belair Road, turning south into the latter. She then saw the Tzomides car which was double parked in the second lane from the west curb of Belair Road.

She saw a passenger (Mrs. Tzomides) get out of the car. 3. Mrs. Dorschel had her daughter, the infant plaintiff, and her two sons as passengers. She was taking them to a Bible School and was driving at a moderate speed, variously estimated at from 5 to 10 to as much as 15 to 20 miles an hour. 4. After Mrs. Tzomides alighted, the defendant’s car moved forward a short distance and then “suddenly” reversed its direction and moved backwards towards the Dorschel car. 5.

Mrs. Dorschel tried to avoid a collision by swerving to the left and putting on her brakes, but could not enter the street car tracks to her left because of the approach of a street car. 6. There was a parking space in front of 5204 Belair Road ³⁴⁴ which Mr. Tzomides had seen. He stated to a police officer that he had “pulled up into position to back into same.” There was no testimony whether the defendant did or did not give any signal of his intention to back his car. There was some conflict or confusion in Mrs. Dorschel’s testimony as to whether she had stopped the car she was driving just before or at substantially the instant of impact.

The testimony of Mrs. Dorschel as to the forward movement of the Tzomides car after discharging its passenger was confirmed by a barber who had a shop at 5202 Belair Road. He did not, however, continue to observe the Tzomides car and did not see any reverse motion of that car or the crash. We are not concerned on this review with the relative weight of the evidence on either side of the case; but in testing the sufficiency of the evidence to warrant submission of the plaintiffs’ claims to the jury, we must assume the truth of all evidence and of such inferences as may be properly deduced therefrom which tend to support the plaintiffs’ rights to recover. Walt zinger v. Birsner, 212 Md. 107 , 128 A. 2d 617 .

The plaintiff contends that the testimony of Mrs. Dorschel on some points is so conflicting, vague and indefinite as to be