Leslie v. Alexander

Henderson, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. Ethel Alexander, a passenger on a trackless trolley, claiming to have been thrown to the floor and injured when the trolley collided with an automobile, sued the Transit Company and the driver of the automobile. The jury found a verdict against the latter and in favor of the Transit Company, and this appeal is from the judgment entered against the ⁶³⁸ driver of the automobile. The only questions raised are as to the correctness of the court’s charge.

The appellant testified that she was driving north on Carey Street and made a right turn to go east on Mosher Street. There was a trackless trolley at the corner, and she pulled around in front of it, without giving any signal of her intention to make the turn. There was other testimony that the trolley had discharged passengers and started up just as the automobile came by, without giving any preliminary signal. The operator testified he saw the automobile in his rear view mirror and allowed it to pass before leaving the curb lane.

The trolley had moved only a few feet when the automobile cut in front, and the operator of the trolley applied his brakes. There was a conflict in the testimony as to whether the trolley was moving, or had stopped, at the time of the impact, which was upon the right rear fender of the automobile. The appellant contends that the trial court erred in reading to the jury the language of Code (1957), Article 66⁴, sec. 228 (a) : “No person shall turn a vehicle from a direct course upon a highway unless and until such movement can be made with reasonable safety and then giving an appropriate signal in the manner hereinafter provided in the event any other vehicle may be affected by such movement.” She points, out that Code (1957), Article 66⁴, sec. 2 (67) defines vehicle as “(e)very device in, upon, or by which any person or property is or may be transported * * * excepting devices; used exclusively upon stationary rails or tracks or propelled by electric power obtained from overhead trolley wires, but not operated upon rails or tracks.” She argues that she was not required to give a signal to the trackless trolley, since it is not within the statutory definition of “other vehicle”. But if we assume, without deciding, that the statute was inapplicable so far as the trackless trolley is concerned, it does not follow that the jury could not properly consider, in deciding whether the appellant exercised reasonable care under the circumstances, her failure to give any signal or to' ascertain that the turn could be made with reasonable safety.

As Judge Markell said for the Court in Eastern Contractors v. Zinkand, 199 Md. 250, 255 (a collision at Friendship Air ⁶³⁹ port and not on a public highway) : “Older than statutory rules of the road, and of broader application, were, and still are (where statutes are inapplicable), the customs of the