Heffner v. Admiral Taxi Service, Inc.

Delaplaine, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. Max Heffner, appellant, brought this action for personal injuries which he sustained on November 22, 1948, when he was attempting to walk across North Howard Street in Baltimore and was knocked down by a taxicab owned by Admiral Taxi Service, Inc., and driven by John Joseph Martellotta. Howard Street is a broad thoroughfare with four traffic lanes. The accident occurred in the south crosswalk of Franklin Street, a one-way street for westbound traffic.

It was about 11:30 a.m. when plaintiff, who was over 56 and disabled by heart trouble, saw the green traffic light while he was standing on the southeast corner, and started to walk toward the southwest corner. A traffic officer was standing immediately west of the center line of Howard Street on the north line of the south crosswalk. When plaintiff was about three-fourths of the way across ⁴⁷⁰ the street, and just before the light changed, he was struck by the taxicab which had been traveling west on Franklin Street and had just turned south into Howard Street. After the trial of the case in the Court of Common Pleas on February 15, 1950, the jury brought in a verdict in favor of plaintiff against both defendants for $500.

Defendants filed a motion-for judgment n.o.v. alleging (1) that there was no legally sufficient evidence of negligence on the part of defendants, and (2) that plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence. The trial judge granted the motion and entered judgment in favor of defendants. The appeal is from that judgment. In the absence of statutory regulation, the rights of motorists and pedestrians on public highways are reciprocal.

Neither the motorist nor the pedestrian has the right to use a public street in disregard of the right of the other to use it. Each must accommodate his movements to the other’s lawful use of it. Highways are for the use of everybody, and no one is barred by age or physical condition from the use of them. It is the duty of the pedestrian to use reasonable care in walking on a street, and to act as an ordinarily careful person would act under similar circumstances.

But the driver of a motor vehicle is required to exercise much greater vigilance and caution to look out for the pedestrian than the pedestrian is required to exercise to look out for the driver. This is because of the fact that the pedestrian cannot usually harm the motorist by the way he uses the street and needs to look only after his own safety, whereas the motorist may kill or seriously injure the pedestrian and therefore should look out for the safety of the pedestrian as well as his own. Panitz v. Webb, 149 Md. 75, 82 , 130 A. 913 ; Mahan v. State, to Use of Carr, 172 Md. 373, 384 , 191 A. 575 ; Universal Credit Co. v. Merryman, 173 Md. 256, 265 , 195 A. 689 ; Holler v. Lowery, 175 Md. 149, 159 , 200 A. 353 ; Dashiell ⁴⁷¹ v. Moore, 177 Md. 657 , 11 A. 2d 640 ; Fotterall v. Hilleary, 178 Md. 335, 343 , 13 A. 2d 358 . Moreover, while ordinary care is required of the driver of a motor vehicle, the vigilance must vary according to the danger naturally anticipated from the operation of the vehicle.

A motorist, when approaching a street intersection, must exercise much greater vigilance than when he is driving between intersections. We emphasize that the duty which the drivers of motor vehicles owe to pedestrians at street crossings is one that should be deeply impressed upon them. The prohibition against fast and reckless driving is not the only requirement placed upon drivers at street crossings; there are other precautions that must be taken by them. It is the duty of a driver at a crossing to look carefully ahead and to keep the car under such control and its speed so reduced as to avoid injury to pedestrians if reasonably possible, and also to warn them, whenever necessary, by proper signals of his approach.

Deford v. Lohmeyer, 147 Md. 472, 476 , 128 A. 454 ; Parr v. Peters, 159 Md. 106, 113, 114 , 150 A. 34 . The Maryland Motor Vehicle Act provides that whenever traffic is controlled by traffic-control signals exhibiting different colored lights successively one at a time, pedestrians facing the signal when the light is green may proceed across the roadway within any marked or unmarked crosswalk; and all vehicles shall yield the right of way to other vehicles and to pedestrians lawfully within the intersection at the time such signal is exhibited. Code Supp. 1947, art. 66^, sec. 141. The law is plain that a motor vehicle with the right to proceed or to turn right or left must yield the right of way to all other vehicles and pedestrians lawfully within the intersection at the time the signal is exhibited.

Thus, as we held in Caryl, to Use of Merchants Mutual Cas. Co. v. Baltimore Transit Co., 190 Md. 162, 169 , 58 A. 2d 239 , an automobile making a left turn must wait until those meeting it have passed, and must not cross in front of ⁴⁷² approaching traffic, either vehicular or pedestrian, in such a way as to interfere with its lawful progress. In the case at bar the driver’s view was unobstructed in broad daylight. The driver did not testify, and thus we have no explanation from him as to why he could not have avoided hitting the pedestrian who was clearly visible.

It is not disputed that a driver of a motor vehicle may disobey the