Maryland case law › Ford v. Baltimore Transit Co.

Ford v. Baltimore Transit Co.

199 Md. 25 (1952) · Court of Appeals of Maryland
Court of Appeals of MarylandDisposition: AffirmedHenderson, J.✓ Good law
HoldingThis appeal arose from a collision between the appellant's automobile and a streetcar at the intersection of Harford Road and Erdman Avenue in Baltimore.

Henderson, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. This appeal is from the action of the trial court in granting a motion for judgment N. O. V. after the jury had returned a verdict for the appellant for personal injuries and property damage sustained in a collision between a streetcar and an automobile. The appellant was driving his automobile north on Harford Road in the traffic lane nearest to the center. When he was half a block from Erdman Avenue he saw a streetcar coming south on Harford Road over a rise some distance north of Erdman Avenue.

Harford Road is fifty feet wide, Erdman Avenue is thirty feet wide, intersecting Harford Road on the east, but not continuing through on the west. North of Erdman Avenue the streetcar tracks are in the center of Harford Road, but begin to curve to the east about one hundred feet north of the intersection. At the north curb line of Erdman Avenue all four tracks are to the east of the center of Harford Road. From this point, they continue on and across the east side of Harford Road onto a private right of way, with T-rail construction, lying between Harford Road and Clifton Park.

The point where they leave Harford Road is about 150 feet south of. Erdman Avenue. There is a traffic control signal at the intersection. 27 The appellant testified that he had the light green and was almost across Erdman Avenue when the left side of his automobile was struck by the left front corner of the streetcar. He was thoroughly familiar with the intersection and the location of the tracks.

He admitted that he did not see the streetcar after he first observed it well north of the intersection, at which time he was half a block away. When he looked again he was on the tracks and the streetcar was only twenty feet away. He contends that he had the right-of-way, that the motorman was at fault in making a “left turn”, and that he was entitled to assume that the motorman would stop and permit him to cross. The appellant relies upon Section 141, Article 66 y% of the Code (1947 Supp.), which provides that vehicles facing a green light may proceed “straight through”, and that “all vehicles shall yield the right-of-way to other vehicles * * * lawfully within the intersection at the time such signal is exhibited.” Subsection (e) of Section 141 provides that “the operator of any street car or trackless trolley shall obey the above signals as applicable to vehicles.” The difficulty is, however, that there is no testimony that the motorman entered the intersection on a red ight, or otherwise disobeyed the signal.

Eisenhower v. Baltimore Transit

This is a preview of Ford v. Baltimore Transit Co.. About 50% of the opinion remains. Read the complete opinion in RecordCite.