Holloway v. Wright

Powers, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The merits of this case and of another case consolidated with it, both arising from the same collision of two automobiles at a street intersection in Baltimore, were determined in a jury trial in the Circuit Court for Carroll County. All that remains for this Court to do on appeal is to direct the entry of one additional judgment to carry into effect the findings of the jury. We set forth only enough of the facts of the collision to enable us to examine in proper perspective the relationships which the pleadings in the case established among the several parties.

On 7 October 1967 Donald C. T. Wright and Vincent D. Fonte were members of the Baltimore City Police Department. At about 3:00 P.M. on that day both were riding in a police car, in the performance of their duties. Fonte was driving. At the intersection of Preston and Broadway Streets the police car and another car, operated by McClellan Holloway, Jr., collided.

Wright and his wife filed a suit for damages against Holloway in the Superior Court of Baltimore City. Holloway brought Fonte into that case by filing a third party claim against him. Holloway asserted no affirmative damage claim against Fonte, but claimed contribution from Fonte with respect to any damages Wright might recover against ⁶¹⁷ Holloway. Fonte filed a separate suit for damages against Holloway, also in the Superior Court of Baltimore City.

The two cases were consolidated. 1 Wright amended his original declaration to add Fonte as a defendant and to claim damages against both Holloway and Fonte. In this posture the cases were removed to the Circuit Court for Carroll County. An inventory of the claims and issues made or raised by these pleadings will assist in understanding them: a. Wright’s claim for damages against Holloway.

To recover required a finding, supported by evidence, that Holloway was negligent. 2 b. Wright’s claim for damages against Fonte. To recover required a finding, supported by evidence, that Fonte was negligent. 2 c. Fonte’s claim for damages against Holloway.

To recover required findings, supported by evidence, that Holloway was negligent and that Fonte was not negligent. d. Holloway’s claim for contribution against Fonte. To recover required a finding on the third party claim, supported by evidence, that Fonte was negligent. This claim would become moot if Wright failed to recover against Holloway.

At the trial, Wright’s evidence was presented first. In substance, it showed that Fonte, on Broadway, entered the intersection on a green light, and that Holloway, on Preston, entered on a red light. At the close of Wright’s evidence Fonte moved for a directed verdict in his favor as a defendant in Wright’s ease. The court granted the motion.

Fonte then presented his case as a plaintiff. His evidence concerning the traffic light was the same as Wright’s. Holloway followed with his evidence. He said that when he ⁶¹⁸ first observed the light from a distance of one block, it was red for traffic on Preston Street, and he reduced his speed.

When he got about half way in the block the light turned green, so he resumed his speed and kept on going. Holloway’s testimony was corroborated by the operator of another car, who said he was on Broadway, stopped at Preston, and the light was red for traffic on Broadway when the collision occurred. In Wright’s case the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiffs and awarded damages totalling $18,900.00. In Fonte’s case the verdict, as the court recorded it, was that the jury found “both the plaintiff, Vincent D. Fonte, and the defendant, McClellan Holloway, Jr., negligent”.

No verdict was taken on Holloway’s third party claim against Fonte. Holloway filed a motion for a new trial as to the Wright verdict against him, and a motion for judgment against Fonte on the third party claim for one half of the Wright verdict. Both motions were denied. Holloway filed a timely appeal as defendant and as third party plaintiff.

The questions he presents here are: 1. Did the Court commit error in granting motion for directed verdict by Defendant (Appellee) Fonte before hearing testimony on behalf of Original Defendant (Appellant) Holloway, Jr. who had first brought Fonte into the case by impleading? 2. Did the Court commit error in denying Third-party Plaintiff’s (Appellant’s) Holloway, Jr. motion for judgment in his favor in the amount of $9450.00 (half the judgment rendered by jury for Plaintiffs Wright) as against Third-party Defendant (Appellee) Fonte? Although Fonte’s motion for a directed verdict at the close of Wright’s evidence raised only the question of the legal sufficiency of that evidence to permit the jury to find in favor of Wright against Fonte, Holloway, as a codefendant, had an interest in the result of that motion which entitles him to assert here that the trial judge erred in granting it. ⁶¹⁹ Williams v. Dawidowicz, 209 Md. 77 , 120 A. 2d 399 (1956) involved an appeal in general terms by one of