Jackson v. Leach

Adkins, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. This is a suit for damages for injuries to the plantiff resulting from a collision between the automobile of the plaintiff and that of Howard W. J ackson, one of the defendants, while being driven by Riall Jackson, the other defendant. The accident occurred at the intersection of Ellamont Street and Clifton Avenue in Baltimore City. The plaintiff was driving northerly on Ellamont Street and Riall Jackson westwardly on Clifton Avenue.

The questions presented for review are: 1. Should the defendants’ demurrer prayer have been granted ? 2. Should the court at the request of the defendants have directed a verdict in favor of the defendants on the ground of contributory negligence ? 3. Should the testimony of Gerald Hall relating to the speed of the Jackson automobile have been stricken out on the motion of the defendants?

On all these points the trial court decided adversely to the defendants. This appeal is from a judgment on a verdict in favor of the plaintiff. There was no evidence of negligence on the part of the defendants except as to excessive speed j and the only direct testimony as to that was given by the witness, Hall. It is contended by the appellants that his testimony should have been stricken out on motion duly made, because, according to his own statement, he did not see defendants’ car except at the moment of the collision, when he was walking north on the east side of Ellamont Street half a block away, and therefore his opinion as to.the speed was merely an inference, as in Dashiell v. Jacoby, 142 Md. 330, 336 , 120 A. 751 , and was not based on his actual observation of the car while running.

Hall’s testimony on this point was substantially as follows: “Q. Did you see the other car (referring to the Jack ¹⁴¹ son car) ? A. I saw it when it hit it. Q.. You saw it coming up the street then?

A. At a terrific speed. Q. Did you see Mr. Jackson’s car at any time before the collision ? <A. I saw the car when it hit. Q. Of course, you couldn’t see around the corner? A. No, oh, no.

Q. You didn’t see around the corner, but when you first saw Mr. Jackson’s car how far was it away from the east side of Ellamont Street? A. You see, I was going extreme north and it was just fortunately my eyes were looking straight ahead, and all of a sudden, right smack off, like that (snapping his fingers), just like a shot out of a cannon. Q. What attracted your attention, the crash ? A. No, my eyes just happened to catch the accident.

Q. Well, you just caught a flashing glance of the machines as they came together, that’s right, isn’t it? A. I got the full view when they came together. Q. But you didn’t see Mr. Jackson’s machine when it was auy distance away from Mr. Leach’s machine, did you ? A. It was impossible, on account of the speed.

Q. You mean it was going so fast you couldn’t see it? A. Well, you see, the corner covers your view. Q. You couldn’t see around the corner ? A. No, sir; and it was on an incline.

Q. And you didn’t see the Jackson car at any time before the accident? Just when they came together, you saw it ? A. That’s right.” The witness further testified as to the position of the car before and after the collision. And then he was asked: “Q. All you remember about this accident is that you saw two machines when they came together?

A. Yes, sir. Q. An instantaneous appearance, that is what you saw, isn’t it? A.