Ford v. Tittsworth

BLOOM, Judge. This case arose from a rear end collision between two automobiles eastbound on Rowe Boulevard in Annapolis. Appellee, Salinda Elizabeth Tittsworth, brought her vehicle to a stop, after pumping her brakes, behind a car that had stopped rather abruptly in front of her because of a red traffic light at the intersection of Farragut Road. Appellant, Milton Thomas Ford, Jr., was unable to stop his automobile before it struck appellee’s car.

Appellee brought suit in the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County. The case was tried before a jury, which returned a verdict in favor of appellee in the amount of $50,000. Appealing from the judgment entered on that verdict, Mr. Ford presents a single issue for our consideration: Did the trial court err in failing to grant defendant’s Motion for Judgment in light of the plaintiff’s failure to present any evidence of defendant’s alleged negligence? We shall not address that issue, however, because appellant failed to preserve it for appellate review. ⁷⁷² At the conclusion of the plaintiffs case, appellant’s counsel made an oral motion “that the court dismiss the complaint as against the defendant in that there has been no showing of primary negligence,” citing, as authority, the case of Brehm v. Lorenz, 206 Md. 500 , 112 A.2d 475 (1954). 1 The court treated that motion as one for judgment and denied it.

Appellant then testified as to his version of the accident. The court instructed the jury, after which appellant’s counsel advised the court that he had no objections or exceptions to the instructions, adding, however: But I would like to put on the record just for paperwork and clearing up things that I’m renewing my motion for a verdict in favor of the plaintiff [sic] at the conclusion of the entire case. Counsel then corrected his slip of the tongue, saying: In favor of the defendant. I’m renewing my motion.

Maryland Rule 2-519, which governs such motions for judgment in civil cases, provides, in pertinent part: Rule 2-519. MOTION FOR JUDGMENT (a) Generally.—A party may move for judgment on any or all of the issues in any action at the close of the evidence offered by an opposing party, and in a jury trial at the close of all the evidence. The moving party shall state with particularity all reasons why the motion should be granted. No objection to the motion for judgment shall be necessary.

A party does not waive the right to make the motion by introducing evidence during the presentation of an opposing party’s case. (c) Effect of Denial.—A party who moves for judgment at the close of the evidence offered by an opposing party may offer evidence in the event the motion is not granted, ⁷⁷³ without having reserved the right to do so and to the same extent as if the motion had not been made. In so doing, the party withdraws the motion. In criminal procedure, the counterpart of Rule 2-519 is Rule 4-324, governing motions for judgment of acquittal.

Rule 4-824(a) permits a defendant in a criminal case to move for acquittal at the close of the evidence offered by the State and, in a jury trial, at the close of all the evidence. That rule, paralleling 2-519(a), requires the moving party— the