Klarman v. Haraszti

Thompson, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The interesting question presented in this appeal concerns the right of a motorist facing a yellow traffic signal to enter an intersection and the interplay of that right with the right of a motorist entering from the opposite direction and making a left turn therein. We hold that a motorist facing the yellow light is entitled to enter the intersection and having thus entered the intersection legally is entitled to proceed through regardless of a change in the traffic signal from yellow to red during the course of his passage. The rights and duties of parties at intersections controlled by signal lights are statutory and governed by Md. Code, Art. 66V2, § 11-202 (1970 Repl.

Vol.) which provides as follows: “ (2) Steady yellow indication. “ (i) Vehicular traffic facing a steady yellow signal is thereby warned that the related green movement is being terminated or that a red indication will be exhibited immediately thereafter when vehicular traffic shall not enter the intersection. “ (ii) Pedestrians facing a steady yellow signal, unless otherwise directed by a pedestrian control signal as provided in § 11-203, are thereby advised that there is insufficient time to cross the roadway before a red indication is shown, and no pedestrian shall then start to cross the roadway.” In construing the meaning of the statute we are assisted by written reports from two legislative committees as well as the history of the Uniform Act of which § 11-202 is a part. Such a rich source of material is not frequently available to ⁴⁸⁵ show the meaning of a Maryland statute. Before reviewing those materials, however, we’pause to quote the instant statute as it existed prior to the enactment of the statute in its present form. 1 “§ 193. Traffic-control signal legend. “(b) Amber alone or ‘caution’ when shown following the green or ‘go ’ signal. “(1) Vehicles facing the signal shall stop before entering the nearest crosswalk at the intersection, but if such stop cannot be made in safety a vehicle may be driven cautiously through the intersection. “(2) Pedestrians facing such signal are thereby advised that there is insufficient time to cross the roadway, and any pedestrian then starting to cross shall yield the right-of-way to all vehicles.” We make two observations: (1) that in the present statute although a pedestrian facing a yellow light is directed to stop, a motor vehicle in such a position is not, and (2) that the specific requirement that a motorist facing a yellow light shall stop unless the stop could not be made in safety was omitted by the legislature in the current statute.

On September 1, 1968, a special committee appointed by the Legislative Council to revise the Motor Vehicle Laws of the State of Maryland, popularly known as the Warnken Commission, reported that the rules of the road in the Maryland Code, a portion of which we are now considering, should be made to conform as closely as possible with the provisions of the Uniform Vehicle Code. The committee report stated: ⁴⁸⁶ On October 7, 1969, a special legislative committee reported after its several-month review of the Warnken Commission report. That committee made a number of changes with reference to the rules of the road but no changes were made in § 11-202. It will be observed that the Maryland statute as it currently reads corresponds exactly with the provisions of the Uniform Vehicle Code.

The historical note following § 11-202 of the Code is interesting and indeed appears to us to be dispositive of the rights of a motorist facing a yellow light. Traffic Laws Annotated (1972 Ed.) on the Rules of the Road § 11-202 and its Historical Note state as follows: ⁴⁸⁵ “This is the area of vehicle law in which the need for national uniformity is greatest, and the UVC [Uniform Vehicle Code] has set the standard.” ⁴⁸⁶ “§ 11-202 — Traffic-control Signal Legend “(b) Steady yellow indication 40 “1. Vehicular traffic facing a steady yellow signal is thereby warned that the related green movement is being terminated or that a red indication will be exhibited immediately thereafter when vehicular traffic shall not enter the intersection. Historical Note “Footnote 40, which has been in the Code in its present form since 1934 provides: “It is recommended that the color yellow be used only before red.

If yellow is used following the red, traffic facing the signal has a tendency to start before the green signal appears, causing interference with cross traffic clearing the intersection. “The historical development of Code provisions on the meaning of a yellow signal following a green one indicates a significant change in the behavior expected of a driver facing such a signal. “The difference between the 1962 Code and the original Code provisions on the meaning of a yellow signal can readily be seen by comparing the two. UVC Act IV, § 12(a) (Rev. ed. 1930) provided: ⁴⁸⁷ “Yellow or ‘Caution,’ when shown alone following the green or ‘Go’ — Traffic facing the signal shall stop before entering the nearest crosswalk at the intersection unless so close to the intersection that a stop cannot be made in safety. “The 1934 and 1938 Codes made the 1930 provision on yellow signals more explicit. Those editions provided: “(b) Yellow alone or ‘Caution’ when shown following the green or ‘Go’ signal. “1. Vehicular traffic facing the signal shall stop before entering the nearest crosswalk at the intersection, but if such stop cannot be made in safety a vehicle may be driven cautiously through the intersection. “UVC Act V, § 32(b) 1 (Rev. ed. 1934); UVC Act V, § 34 (b) 1 (Rev. ed. 1938).

The first Code provisions on a steady yellow signal following a green one thus provided that, as a general rule, drivers should not proceed through the intersection. The 1962 Code, on the other hand, provides that a steady yellow signal warns a driver that a red signal will be exhibited immediately at which time he shall not enter the intersection. The tacit assumption of the 1962 Code is, of course, that a driver may lawfully enter the intersection on a yellow signal and lawfully continue across it even though a red signal may be shown during the time of such crossing. See UVC § ll-202(a)l (Rev. ed. 1962) requiring drivers facing a green signal on an intersecting street to yield the right of way to vehicles ‘lawfully within the intersection.’ “Actually, except for circumstances that would make it unsafe to stop, the original Code provisions on yellow signals required the same conduct on the part of drivers as the Code provision on red or stop ⁴⁸⁸ signals.

Thus, it was not surprising that in 1944, the National Committee substantially amended the Code’s yellow signal provision: “Vehicular traffic facing the signal is thereby warned that the red or ‘Stop’ signal will be exhibited immediately thereafter and such vehicular traffic shall not enter or be crossing the intersection when the red or ‘Stop’ signal is exhibited. (Emphasis added.) “UVC Act V, § 34(b)l (Rev. ed. 1944). This provision remained in the Code without amendment until 1962 and, in fact, served as the basis for the 1962 Code provision. UVC Act V, § 34(b)l (Rev. eds. 1948, 1952); UVC § ll-202(b)l (Rev. eds. 1954, 1956, 1962).

The 1962 Code, however, contains one very substantial change. The italicized clause, ‘or be crossing, ’ was deleted by the National Committee in 1962 so that a driver may now both legally enter the intersection on yellow and legally clear the intersection for use by traffic on intersecting streets even though a red signal is displayed while he is in the intersection. See discussion by Fisher, Vehicle Traffic Law 417 (1961).” (Emphasis added). We have found four cases construing the yellow light, portion of the statute as it now reads in Maryland.

They all support our holding. Fuentes v. Panella, 120 Cal. App. 2d 175 , 260 P. 2d 853 (1953); Prather v. Phillis Wheatley Association, 8 Ohio App. 2d 91 , 193 N.E.2d 290 (1963); Stann v. Taus & Associates, 79 Ohio L. Abs. 217 , 151 N.E.2d 756 (1958); Case v. Carter, 103 Ohio App. 11 , 142 N.E.2d 670 (1956). I FACTS The record shows that Edward L. Klarman, the appellant, brought suit in the Superior Court of Baltimore City to recover damages as the result of an automobile accident which occurred about 11 p.m. on January 25, 1971.

He was ⁴⁸⁹ proceeding south on Moravia Road at its intersection with Sinclair Lane when Dr. Joseph Haraszti, the defendant/appellee who had been proceeding in a northerly direction on Moravia Road was making a left