Larkins v. Baltimore Transit Co.

McWilliams, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. This is the case of the wayward bus. 1 Appellant (Larkins), in the trial below, claimed to be a beneficiary of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. The trial judge, unpersuaded, directed a verdict for the appellees at the close of the plaintiff’s (Larkins’) case. We take a somewhat different view of Larkins’ case.

To fully comprehend the nature of the downtown Baltimore intersection where the bus went astray one needs to glance once or twice at the attached sketch as it is being described. Sara-toga Street runs steeply downhill from A to B. From B to D (the bed of St. Paul Street, upper level) Saratoga Street is relatively level. From D to E it becomes steep again, levels off somewhat from E to F (the bed of St. Paul Street, lower level) and from F to G it is about as steep as from A to B. Between A and B on Saratoga Street there are 3 traffic lanes. The two northernmost lanes are for westbound traffic only; the southernmost lane is for the exclusive use of eastbowid ³⁰⁷ transit buses which must turn right at H and proceed in a southerly direction on St. Paul Street (upper level).

Between B and G Saratoga Street is one way westbound. Charles Street is one way northbound; St. Paul Street, upper level, between C and D is one way northbound; between C and B it is one way southbound. St. Paul Street, lower level, is one way southbound. Phase I of Baltimore’s Snow Emergency Plan 2 went into effect at 12:01 A. M. on Monday, 13 January 1964.

Just before 11:30 A. M. on that day Larkins, a printer, was southbound on St. Paul Street, lower level. Snow was falling and the streets were covered with snow. Larkins had both snow tires and chains ³⁰⁸ on his car, which was a 1956 4-door Chevrolet station wagon, and so far he had experienced no problems in controlling it. He intended to turn right and go west on Saratoga Street.

Apparently the combination of the steep grade and the snow covered surface of the street so reduced the effectiveness of his front wheels that, when turned to the right, the car slid straight ahead instead of turning to the right. Larkins backed up a short distance and was in the act of making the turn, successfully this time, when the bus appeared suddenly, collided with his vehicle and continued on in an easterly direction for 10 or 12 feet before coming to rest. The right front of the bus struck the right rear of Larkins’ station wagon. The appellee Campbell, the bus driver, told Larkins after the collision that he knew “it [the bus] had to stop somewhere.” Larkins’ statement that the tires on the bus were not snow tires was stricken by the trial judge but he was allowed to testify that they were tires of a design one “would normally find on a car or a truck in normal weather.” There were no tire chains on the bus.

Appellees requested Larkins to admit, as provided by Maryland Rule 421, the truth of certain statements, two of which read as follows: “That just prior to the happening of the collision referred to in Plaintiff’s Declaration, Defendant’s bus was proceeding in an easterly direction downgrade in the southernmost traffic lane along Saratoga Street approaching St. Paul Street.” “That at the time of, and just immediately prior to the collision between Plaintiff’s vehicle and Defendant’s bus, as alleged in the declaration, the said bus was in the act of skidding or sliding on the snow covered street downgrade along Saratoga Street.” The statements were deemed to be admitted because of Larkins’ failure to reply to the appellees’ request. Maryland Rule 421 b 2. Despite all the discussion of res ipsa loquitur, both in