Harding v. Alpha Van Lines, Inc.

Marbury, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The appellants, plaintiffs below, appealed from a judgment for costs entered in favor of the appellee, defendant below, by direction of the trial court withdrawing the case from the jury at the conclusion of the plaintiffs’ evidence on liability on the ground that there was insufficient identification of the vehicle which allegedly caused the accident. On Tuesday, August 5, 1958, in a 1953 Chrysler sedan driven by Mr. Harding, Mr. and Mrs. Harding were proceeding south on U. S. 301 in Prince George’s County to their home in St. Mary’s County, after visiting a doctor in Washington. U. S. 301 at that time was a dual highway paved for two lanes of traffic south bound, separated by a median strip from a similar pavement for traffic north bound.

At 2 P.M., or shortly thereafter, on a bright, clear day as Mr. Harding was driving in the right lane, approaching the Mc-Kendree Road, a car in the left lane in front of him slowed to make a left turn; at this moment a van, close behind this car, and about to pass the Harding car, cut to the right, forcing the Hardings off the road and into the back of a trailer loaded with lumber, parked on the right shoulder of the road. The Harding car was damaged along its right side, and Mrs. Harding was injured. The Hardings caught only a brief ⁵⁹⁹ glimpse of the van as it passed alongside in the moment before their car rammed into the parked trailer. The entire episode was observed by a passenger in the car preparing to make the left turn, who after the van disappeared to the south, then went over to the Hardings and left her card and a description of the van with Mr. Harding.

State Police arrived and took pictures. Mrs. Harding was taken to a Washington hospital in an ambulance. Depositions taken nearly a year later uncovered the fact that two of the defendant’s vans had left Alexandria for Tall Timbers in St. Mary’s County the day of the accident. The first had broken down at Oraville, a distance of approximately twenty-five miles from the scene of the accident, about 10:00 o’clock that morning, and the other was dispatched to replace it.

Both vans had traveled from Alexandria through Washington on Route 5 to T. B., Route 301 to Waldorf, then Route 5 and Route 235 toward Lexington Park. The second van picked up the first crew and drove on to Tall Timbers. They arrived too late for their customer, so returned to Oraville and towed the first van back to Alexandria. The principal question involved in this case is whether there was sufficient identification of the offending vehicle to require submission of the issue to the jury.

This question has not often been before this Court for consideration. See Morris v. Twigg, 190 Md. 324 , 58 A. 2d 719 , where Judge Henderson analyzes all prior decisions of this Court concerning identification of motor vehicles. The appellee relies strongly upon the Twigg case in claiming that this question in the instant case was correctly answered in the negative by the trial judge in his ruling below. In that case the plaintiff brought an action for injuries sustained at night when an oncoming truck, while rounding a curve, forced his vehicle off the road.

The identification of the truck was attempted to be established by the testimony of the plaintiff, who only had a momentary glimpse of it. There were no other witnesses to the accident. Defendant in that case testified that he was in the vicinity at the time of the accident, and in addition that he was intercepted twenty ⁶⁰⁰ miles from the scene of the accident. This Court held that the evidence was insufficient as to identification to merit its submission to the jury.

The momentary glimpse of the automobile by the plaintiff had little, if any, evidentiary value and the defendant’s admission of being in the vicinity of the accident did not in itself establish a preponderance of probability under the circumstances. Moreover, the identification by the plaintiff did not correspond with the proven characteristics of the truck. In this case we have a disinterested witness, Mrs. Turner, who was riding as a passenger (not the driver as indicated by the trial judge in his opinion), who testified that she recalled identifying the truck as “Alpha line”, “Alpha van” to Mr. Harding immediately after the accident. This was corroborated by Mr. Harding.

The record shows that the second van dispatched by the appellee from Alexandria had “ALPHA” painted on each side, followed by “van lines” in small letters, and “ALPHA” in large letters across the back. This to a degree corroborated the testimony produced by the plaintiffs. As to the color of the truck, it was established at the trial that the truck is painted a cream on top and “red” on the bottom, with a black band between. Mr. Harding testified that the van appeared “either brown or maroon”; Mrs. Harding that it was “either dark maroon or brown”; and Mrs. Turner said it was a “dark color.

It was dirty.” Mr. Harding testified that the van was “a six-wheel truck; * * * two front wheels, dual wheels in back”, and that it was a closed