Grady v. Brown

SALMON, Judge. John Grady and his wife, Jacqueline Grady, brought a motor tort claim in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City against Darin Donell Brown (Brown). The parties agreed that the case would be tried before a jury on the issue of liability only and that, if Brown was found liable for the accident, a judgment in the amount of $50,000 would be entered against him. At the conclusion of all the evidence, counsel representing the Gradys made a motion for judgment in their favor as to the issue of liability.

The motion was denied. The jury, by its answers to a question set forth on a special verdict sheet, found that Mr. Brown was not negligent. Accordingly, the jury did not reach the second question presented to them, which was whether John Grady was contributorily negligent. The Gradys filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and a motion for a new trial.

Both motions were denied. Mr. and Mrs. Grady then noted this appeal, in which they present one question for our review: did the trial court err when it denied appellant’s motion for judgment? 1 ³⁶⁹ I A. UNDISPUTED FACTS The accident that gave rise to this case took place in Baltimore City at the intersection of Falkirk Road and an alley that intersects that road. Falkirk Road has two lanes-one for northbound traffic and one for southbound traffic. Parking is allowed on both the east and west sides of Falkirk Road.

The accident occurred at approximately 7 a.m. on March 16, 2005. John Grady (“Grady”) was riding his motorcycle northbound on Falkirk Road. He stopped at a stop sign at the intersection of Falkirk Road and Gittings Road. That stop sign is about 150 feet from the point where the accident occurred.

As Grady proceeded north towards the accident scene, there were parked vehicles to his right, i.e., on the east side of Falkirk Road. Shortly before the accident, Brown was driving his green Ford Escort station wagon westbound in the alley that intersects with Falkirk Road. As will be seen, there is a dispute as to what Brown did after he reached the intersection of the alley and Falkirk Road. B. TRIAL TESTIMONY OF GRADY As Grady approached the alley, a Ford Pickup truck was parked about 3 feet to his (Grady’s) right and slightly south of the entrance to the alley.

That pickup truck was the nearest parked vehicle to the alley and it would have been to the ³⁷⁰ immediate left of a motorist emerging from the alley on to Falkirk Road. Grady was driving about 15 miles per hour (mph) northbound on Falkirk Road as he neared the alley. He got a glimpse of Mr. Brown’s vehicle coming out of the alley. Although he expected Brown to stop, Brown’s vehicle did not.

Instead, Brown’s vehicle emerged from the alley and drove directly onto Falkirk Road and into the path of his motorcycle. Grady pulled his clutch, hit the handbrakes, and blew his horn simultaneously in order to avoid Brown’s vehicle. He also veered to the left. Despite these maneuvers, the motorcycle and Brown’s vehicle collided in the middle of the intersection as Brown was trying to turn left in order to go southbound on Falkirk Road.

At the point of impact, Grady’s motorcycle was going about 5 mph. According to Grady, Brown’s vehicle struck the right front of the motorcycle. The force of the impact caused his 900 pound vehicle to turn over and caused Grady to be thrown to the ground. After the accident, Brown backed his vehicle into the alley.

C. TESTIMONY OF CHRISTINE SORENSEN Christine Sorensen, an employee of the Baltimore City Fire Department, arrived at the scene of the accident shortly after it occurred. She observed Grady’s motorcycle in the roadway and also saw Brown’s vehicle parked nearby in the alley. She found the front license tag that had been on Brown’s automobile in the middle of Falkirk Road. Other than recalling the point where she located the license tag, she did not remember any particulars as to the scene of the accident.

D. BROWN’S TESTIMONY Brown was traveling in the alley going west as he approached the intersection of the alley with Falkirk Road. He ³⁷¹ saw and heard Grady’s motorcycle when he (Brown) was about two car lengths away from the intersection. When he got to the end of the alley, he stopped his station wagon and then “inched out” into Falkirk Road so that the front of his vehicle was even with the side of the vehicle that was parked to his immediate left. At no time did he move his vehicle further into Falkirk Road than the point even with the side of the parked vehicle.

According to Brown, he was stopped for about 5-10 seconds when Grady’s motor vehicle started to skid. After skidding for about eight feet, the motorcycle hit the ground and slid an additional distance and then struck the front bumper of Brown’s vehicle. Brown testified that it was his intention to turn left to go southbound on Falkirk Road if the accident had not occurred. He denied that he pulled into the path of the motorcycle.

Brown further testified that he “would say” that the speed limit for Falkirk Road was “about 25” mph. In regard to the speed of the motorcycle prior to the accident, Brown said that the motorcycle was going “pretty fast” and he estimated the speed of the motorcycle as being “at least 30, 35” mph. In Brown’s words, the motorcycle “definitely wasn’t [going] 15” mph, as Grady testified.

II

ANALYSIS In deciding whether the trial judge should have entered a judgment as to liability in favor of the appellants, we are required to examine the facts presented at trial, together with all inferences that can reasonably be inferred from those facts, in the light most favorable to Brown, the non-moving party. See Maryland Rule 2-519(a). This means that we must accept as true Brown’s version as to how the accident occurred and, to the extent that it contradicts Brown’s testimony, reject the version testified to by Grady. ³⁷² Four sections of the Transportation Article of the Maryland Code (2006 Rep. Vol.) are relevant to the issue here presented. 2 Those are: sections 21-705, 21 — 101(b), 21 — 101(f), and 11-151(a).

Section 21-705(c) reads: (c) Yielding right-of-way to other approaching vehicles.— The driver of a vehicle emerging from an alley, driveway, or building shall on entering the roadway, yield the right-of-way to any other vehicle approaching on the roadway. Section 21-101(b) defines “alley” as meaning “a street that: (1) [i]s intended to provide access to the rear or side of a lot or building in an urban district; and (2) [is] not intended for through vehicular traffic.” Section 21-101(t) of the Transportation Article provides: ³⁷³ (t) Right-of-way. — “Right-of-way” means the right of one vehicle or pedestrian to proceed in a lawful manner on a highway in preference to another vehicle or pedestrian. Section 11 — 151(a) of the Transportation Article defines “roadway” as meaning: (a) In general. — “Roadway” means that part of a highway that is improved, designed, or ordinarily used for vehicular travel, other than the shoulder. The Gradys contend that Brown caused the accident by entering on to a favored highway and thus violated the Boulevard Rule.

Brown contends that at the time of the collision he was not on the favored highway. Instead, according to Brown, he simply “entered the area permitted for parked cars” on the east side of Falkirk Road. Nothing in the record supports the contention that Brown’s vehicle was in the area permitted for parked vehicles. To the contrary, it is obvious that parking was not permitted at the point he was stopped (according to Brown’s testimony) at the time of the collision.

After all, if parking was permitted where Brown stopped, parked vehicles would block the entrance into, and the exit from, the alley. Brown, at the time he was struck by Grady’s motorcycle, was in an area next to where parking is permitted. Put another way, if, as in this case, a vehicle was parallel parked along the east curb of Falkirk Road, then a westbound vehicle emerging from the alley on to Falkirk Road would be shielded from oncoming traffic for a few feet. The extent of the “shield” would depend on the width of the parked vehicle and the distance, if any, that the vehicle parked away from the curb.

We agree with the Gradys that even if Brown’s testimony is credited, he still was in the “roadway” (i.e., Falkirk Road) when the collision occurred. The reason for our agreement is because Brown’s vehicle was stopped in a “part of a highway ³⁷⁴ that is ... ordinarily used for vehicular traffic.” See Section ll-151(a), quoted supra. It is true, of course, that the place Brown’s vehicle was positioned was not at a place that was ordinarily used for through traffic on Falkirk Road. Nevertheless, the place of the collision was, quite obviously, still used for vehicles turning into the alley from either northbound or southbound Falkirk Road. 3 When Brown emerged from the alley, the requirements of section 21-705 of the Transportation Article required him to “yield the right-of-way to any other vehicle approaching on the roadway.” The roadway, in this case, was Falkirk Road.

Having established that Brown’s vehicle was in Falkirk Road when the accident occurred, the question becomes: did Brown yield the right-of-way to the motorcycle driven by Grady? In order to answer that question, it is important to set forth Brown’s exact testimony as to that point: ³⁷⁵ Q. [Brown’s Attorney]: Was any part of your vehicle protruding into the through lane, the northbound lane in which plaintiff was traveling? A. No. Q. At any time prior to this incident occurring was any portion of your vehicle extended into the through lane where plaintiff was traveling? A. No, like I said, I never went past the parked car.

On cross-examination, Brown essentially reiterated what he had said on direct, viz: Q. Now, you also said that you never — your car never protruded into the alley? I’m sorry, your car never protruded onto Falkirk; is that correct? A. No, no. Q. Is that correct?

A. That’s correct. Q. And you said that you were either even or maybe even a little less than even with the parked vehicle? A. Right, I was even, right. Q. Or a little less than even you say?

A. Or a little less, yeah. If it was true that Brown sat motionless for 5-10 seconds in the area shielded by the parked vehicle while he waited for the motorcycle to pass, then he did what section 21-705(c) required him to do, which was “to yield the right-of-way to any other vehicle approaching on the highway.” As mentioned earlier, prior to the accident, Grady was going straight on Falkirk Road. Grady had a right to assume that Brown, the unfavored driver, would stop and yield the right-of-way to him. Dean v. Redmiles, 280 Md. 137,