Girton v. Baltimore Transit Co.

Delaplaine, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. William Z. Girton, of Baltimore, instituted this suit against the Baltimore Transit Company to recover for personal injuries and property damage which he sustained when his automobile was struck by a street car operated by defendant at the intersection of Madison and Lafayette Avenues. The accident occurred on the afternoon of May 15, 1947, when plaintiff was driving his 1937 Willys west on Lafayette Avenue on his way home from work. The street car was southbound on Madison Avenue.

Plaintiff testified that when he approached Madison Avenue, he slowed down to a speed of about 5 miles an hour. He said that he first looked to the left and saw that “it was clear,” and then looked to the right and saw the street car about a half block away. He said there was some people on the northwest corner who were stepping off the curb into the street “as if to board the street car,” and as the street car was slowing down he assumed that the motorman would stop for the passengers. He accordingly increased his speed and started across Madison Avenue.

When he looked again he saw that the street car had not stopped, but had increased its speed. He tramped on the accelerator in an attempt to get across the track ahead of the car. But it struck his automobile, knocking it about 30 feet and wrecking it beyond repair. Plaintiff and two passengers, whom he was driving home from work, were severely injured.

At the close of plaintiff’s case, the trial judge overruled defendant’s motion for a directed verdict. The case was then submitted to the jury, and their verdict was rendered in favor of plaintiff for the sum of $500. The trial judge ⁶⁷⁶ then granted defendant’s motion for judgment n.. o. v. Plaintiff has appealed here from that judgment. It is an established rule that the respective rights of the operators of street cars and automobiles to the use of the streets of a city are equal, and their duties in reference to the observance of precautions against injury are reciprocal.

United Railways & Electric Co. v. Mantik, 127 Md. 197 , 96 A. 261 . Chief Judge McSherry said of the care required in the operation of street cars: “There is no analogy between a case like this and a case which grows out of an injury inflicted at a crossing over a railroad in the open country, because the rights and reciprocal duties of both the injured and the injuring parties are radically different in the one instance from their rights and their reciprocal duties in the other instance. A street railway company has no exclusive right to the use of a public highway in a city for the movement of its cars, and possesses no greater or superior right to use the street than is enjoyed by any individual, apart from the mere franchise to lay its rails thereon. The franchise in no way exempts such a company from an imperative obligation to exercise due and proper care in propelling its cars to avoid injuring persons who have an equal right to use the same street as a thoroughfare.” United Railways & Electric Co. v. Watkins, 102 Md. 264, 267 , 62 A. 234, 235 .

However, the general rule is firmly established that where the plaintiff in a suit for damages was guilty of contributory negligence, the negligence of the defendant becomes immaterial. United Railways & Electric Co. v. Durham, 117 Md. 192, 197 , 83 A. 154 ; Cook v. United Railways & Electric Co., 132 Md. 553, 557 , 104 A. 37 ; O’Meary v. Baltimore & Belair Electric Railway Co., 133 Md. 503, 508 , 105 A. 732 . The driver of a motor vehicle, in entering a street intersection, must operate the vehicle as a reasonably prudent man would do under the circumstances. At an intersection a driver, who crosses in front of an approaching street car which he plainly sees, may not be negligent if, in view of the distance of ⁶⁷⁷ the street car, the rate of speed of its approach, and other circumstances, a reasonably prudent man would accept the hazard and undertake to cross.

But a street car may be so close to the intersection that the driver of an automobile would be rash in attempting the hazard of crossing, and in such a case the court should adjudge him guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law. State, to Use of Henderson v. United Railways & Electric Co., 139 Md. 306 , 115 A. 109 . When the evidence shows that the plaintiff’s injury resulted from a deliberate but unsuccessful effort to cross the car track in the face of evident danger, or that the collision was due to a gross miscalculation as to the plaintiff’s chance of being able to clear the track before the street car would reach the point where the collision occurred, a recovery is denied upon the ground that such a reckless attempt to cross the track was obvious negligence on the part of the plaintiff. The motorist who disregards his own safety by recklessly undertaking to cross a car track, when no man of ordinary prudence would do so, cannot hold the street car company liable for his own recklessness.

United Railways & Electric Co. v. Watkins, 102 Md. 264, 268 , 62 A. 234, 235 . In this case plaintiff relied on the assumption that the people he saw on the curb wanted to board the street car and that the motorman would stop the car to let them on. Generally, when the driver of an automobile approaches a street