Hendler Creamery Co. v. Friedman

Digges, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, This case is now before the court for the second time. In the former case, reported in 158 Md. 131 , 148 A. 426, 432 , the judgment below was in favor of the defendant, and the plaintiff appealed. In this case the plaintiff recovered a judgment, and the appeal is by the defendant. The only exception which the record contains is to the ruling on the prayers.

The testimony is practically the same as in the former case, except that there are two additional witnesses on behalf of the defendant, whose testimony does nothing more than corroborate other testimony as to the position of the defendants’ truck and the plaintiff’s automobile at the time of or immediately after the collision, and does not in ⁵²⁸ any manner change the legal question involved. The facts are fully set forth by Judge Offutt in the former opinion, and it is unnecessary to detail them here. After stating the facts, it was there said: “It is apparent, from an examination of the evidence to which we have referred, that each of the parties to the cause attributed the happening of the accident to the violation 'of a different provision of the Motor Yehicle Law. The plaintiff contended that the collision would not have occurred if defendant’s truck had been where the law required it to be, on the right side of the street; while the defendant asserted that plaintiff’s alleged failui’e to yield the right of way was the direct and proximate cause of it.

Neither theory was exclusive, and if there was in the case evidence to support both, then whether the accident was caused by plaintiff’s failure to yield the right of way, or' the position of the defendant’s truck, or was due in part to both causes, became a question of fact to be determined by a jury.” The accident occurred in Baltimore City, at the intersection of Baltimore and Albemarle Streets. Baltimore Street runs east and west, and Albemarle Street north and south, approaching Baltimore Street from the south, but does not continue north of that street. For the purposes of this case, they are intersecting streets. Buckey v. White, 137 Md. 130 , 111 A. 777 .

There is evidence tending to prove that the defendant’s truck was being driven north on the left-hand side of Albemarle Street, in close proximity to its intersection with Baltimore Street, with intent to turn west on Baltimore Street; that, in making such turn, it, in the vernacular, “cut the corner”; that is, failed to go to the right <of the center of the intersection of these two streets; that the plaintiff was driving an automobile on the right side of Baltimore Street, going east; that there are two street railway tracks on Baltimore Street at this point, one east and the other west bound. The point of collision, according to the plaintiff, was on Baltimore Street, about three or four feet from the southwest corner of Baltimore and Albemarle Streets; while the defendant places the point of collision at practically the same location, though perhaps nearer the cen ⁵²⁹ ter of Baltimore Street. The negligence of the defendant is alleged to be the violation of a city ordinance or state statute, requiring that a truck being driven on the right-hand side of Albemarle Street, in making the turn into' Baltimore Street, proceed to the right of the center of the intersection; while the negligence of the plaintiff is alleged to be the failure to yield the right of way to the defendant’s truck, in accordance with the provisions of article 56 of the Oo'de, which provides that vehicles, approaching a street or road intersection from the left, yield the right of way to those approaching from the right. Code, art. 56, sec. 209.

The effect of the opinion in the previous case, resulting in a reversal and remanding for new trial, was to hold that the question pre>sented by the record was a jury one, and that it should be left to the jury to determine from the evidence whether there was negligence on the part of either the defendant or the plaintiff, or both, and that, if they found that both were negligent—the defendant in failing to drive on the right side of the street, and in turning keep to' the right of the center of the intersection, and the plaintiff in failing to yield the right of way—the jury should then determine which of said acts of negligence was the direct and proximate cause of the accident, and render their verdict accordingly. The question here now is: Did the granted instructions, upon the retrial, fairly permit the jury to act in accordance with the law as determined by this court in the former decision ? The three prayers of the plaintiff were granted. The defendant offered fifteen prayers, of which eight were granted and the others refused.

The appellant makes no objection in this court to the plaintiff’s granted prayers; neither does it