Downey v. Baltimore Transit Co.

Henderson, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. This appeal is from a judgment entered upon a directed verdict for the defendant in an action for personal injuries sustained by the driver of a taxicab in a collision with a street car at the intersection of Aisquith Street and Ashland Avenue. The plaintiff was driving south on the west side of Aisquith Street, 35 feet wide, at about 11:30 P. M. on March 28, 1949. He was familiar with the intersection and evidently knew what the plat shows, that Ashland Avenue has only one set of tracks for westbound street ²⁴⁷ cars.

He testified that he looked to his left as he approached the intersection but did not see the street car. When he was a few feet from the track he saw the street car coming very fast. It was then too late to stop and the car struck the left side of the cab. When he first looked to his left he could see about one hundred feet up Ashland Avenue.

When pressed as to the exact point where he was at that time, he gave various estimates as to his distance from the building line, but finally stated definitely that he was “between thirty-five and forty feet from the street car track.” It was shown by the plat that the distance from the northernmost track to the north curb of Ashland Avenue is 16% feet, from the curb to the building line 14% feet, a total of 31 feet from the track to the building line. At the time he looked, therefore, he must have been from 4 to 9 feet north of the building line. He testified that he was driving at 18 or 20 miles per hour and could have stopped in about 10 feet. It is unnecessary to summarize the testimony of other witnesses as it does not contradict or qualify the plaintiff’s testimony bearing upon the issue of contributory negligence.

His own testimony presents the most favorable view. We may assume, without deciding, as the trial court assumed, that there was some evidence of negligence on the part of the operator of the street car. Upon the plaintiff’s own statement we think he was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law. It is difficult to believe that the street car was not within the range of his vision when he first looked.

But in any event, as has been said repeatedly, it was the duty of the plaintiff not only to look before starting across the intersection but to keep on looking until the track, the real point of danger, was reached. Had he done so he could have seen the street car in time to stop and avoid the collision. It was a plain case of looking too soon and too late. Bearings Service Co. v. Baltimore Transit Co., 197 Md. 1 , 77 A. 2d 779 ; Rumbley v. Baltimore Transit Co., 194 Md. 164 , 69 A. 2d 805 ; Girton ²⁴⁸ v. Baltimore Transit Co., 192 Md. 671 , 65 A. 2d 329 ; National Hauling Co. v. Baltimore Transit Co., 185 Md. 158 , 44 A. 2d 450 ; Colgate & Co. v. United Rys. & Electric