Madge v. Fabrizio

JOHNSON, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. On the morning of July 3rd, 1939, Brinley R. Madge and his two sons were riding on Carroll Island Road in a motor vehicle owned and driven by Lawrence R. Barth. Their destination was Baltimore City, but, upon entering Eastern Avenue, the automobile in which they rode came in contact with a one and one-half ton loaded beer truck proceeding northeasterly on Eastern Avenue, and as a result of the collision appellant sustained personal injuries, to recover damages for which he instituted suit against the owners of the truck and Barth, his host. After various pleadings in the case, the parties were at issue and at the trial in the Superior Court of Baltimore City Madge recovered a judgment against Barth, but as to the truck owners the court granted a demurrer prayer withdrawing the case from the consideration of the jury because of legally insufficient evidence to entitle the plaintiff to recover.

Judgment was entered upon the jury’s verdict, and from that judgment the present appeal is prosecuted. The sole exception before us relates to the correctness of the court’s action in granting the demurrer prayer offered by the owners of the beer truck. ⁵¹⁹ At the trial it was stipulated that the accident happened at or near the intersection of Eastern Avenue with Carroll Island Road, in Baltimore County, on July 3rd, at 10 o’clock A. M., when the weather was clear and the roads dry; that Eastern Avenue is a public highway of the State and is a boulevard marked with stop signs at the intersecting highways, and at the time of the accident a stop sign was located on Carroll Island Road near its intersection with Eastern Avenue; that at the intersection there was neither a traffic officer controlling traffic, nor an automatic signal controlling traffic, and the speed limit at that point was fifty miles an hour; that the center line of Eastern Avenue was marked by a line painted upon the surface of the highway and appellant at the time of the accident was a passenger in the Barth vehicle, sitting at the extreme right end of its front, which was being operated by Barth, who was seated behind the wheel on the left side of the front, appellant’s son occupying the center space. It was further stipulated that appellees were partners trading under the firm name of West Side Distributing Company, and they were the owners of a 1939 one and one-half ton Chevrolet Truck involved in the collision and immediately prior to the accident it was being driven in an easterly direction upon Eastern Avenue by one Grieninger, who on that occasion was upon the business of the owners; further that the pavement on Eastern Avenue at a point immediately west of the intersection is around twenty-four feet wide, and east of the intersection its width is about twenty-two feet, while the pavement of Carroll Island Road at a point immediately south of the accident is between twenty and twenty-one feet wide. From a plat contained in the record it definitely appears that Eastern Avenue, the boulevard referred to in the stipulation, runs, generally speaking, east and west, while Carroll Island Road extends southwesterly from the southerly line of Eastern Avenue, so that the angle formed by the south line of Eastern Avenue and the northerly line of Carroll Island Road is acute. ⁵²⁰ The area forming that angle is taken up with a filling station with gasoline pumps to the north facing Eastern Avenue, also to its south facing Carroll Island Road.

And 250 feet west of the intersection, Eastern Avenue widens to thirty-two feet, at which point a curve begins extending southwesterly. From what has already been said, it follows that the Barth automobile was proceeding in a northwesterly direction and the driver thereof testified he intended to keep on that course until he had passed the center line of Eastern Avenue, then turn left in a southwesterly course, and in following that route he would have be°en required to cross Eastern Avenue diagonally. In doing this his vehicle suddenly was in collision with the beer truck. The stipulation shows Eastern Avenue to be a favored way, or boulevard within the purview of Code, art. 56, sec. 235, which provides that after stop signs have been placed by the State Roads Commission at the “entrances thereto from intersecting highways * * * it shall be unlawful for * * * any vehicle, including bicycle, to fail to stop in obedience thereto, * * The quoted portion of section 235 has been construed by us in Monumental Motor Tours v. Becker, 165 Md. 32 , A. 166 A. 434 ; Blinder v. Monaghan, 171 Md. 77 , 188 A. 31 ; Greenfeld v. Hook, 177 Md. 116 , 8 A. 2nd 888; and Pegelow v. Johnson, 177 Md. 345 , 9 A. 2nd 645, and from those decisions it may be definitely stated that for a driver to enter such a boulevard without stopping or, having once stopped, to enter upon the favored highway before yielding the right-of-way to vehicles thereon is an act of negligence on his part, because there is no requirement that the motorist upon the boulevard should slow down at intersections, for the reason that thevpurpose of the statute it to permit such vehicles to move freely, thus accelerating the flow of traffic over such favored highway; and it may also be said that the driver of a motor vehicle upon the boulevard has a right to assume that those