Miles v. Webb

Adkins, J., delivered tbe opinion of tbe Court. The plaintiff was injured as tbe result of a collision between bis automobile and tbe truck of defendant. Tbe truck was left by defendant’s employee standing in tbe public road leading from Crisfield to Hopewell in Somerset County about 7.15 P. M. on September 12th, 1930, without a rear light. A concessum in tbe case is that on that day tbe sun set at 6.12 P. M. Tbe plaintiff’s account of tbe accident is that, as be rounded a corner in tbe road known as Mariner’s corner, be saw some lights coming down tbe road. “I kept my eyes on them until about tbe time I got to tbe truck and tbe lights blinded me and right after be (tbe driver of tbe car with tbe blinding lights) passed, tbe truck was so close on me I could not avoid tbe accident.

I turned tbe wheels to tbe left trying to get out of it, but it was just too close and tbe rear end of tbe truck bit my body on tbe right-band side, crashing her in and throwing me out in tbe road.” He further testified that bis car was lighted; that, when tbe car be met bad passed, be was about ninety feet from tbe truck; but by the time bis vision cleared be was about forty feet away; that bis rate of speed was between thirty and forty miles an hour; that be was not driving very fast because be bad slowed down at tbe corner; that bis brakes were in good •condition; that it was “pretty dark, may be a little redness in tbe west.” One or more other witnesses testified that it was dark. It is conceded that tbe only lights on tbe truck were two small lights in front which were not reflected in tbe rear. This appeal is from tbe judgment on a verdict in favor of tbe plaintiff. Tbe only exception to< rulings on evidence was abandoned, so we are only concerned with tbe ruling on the prayers.

Plaintiff’s two prayers were granted and six of tbe defendant’s. Plaintiff’s second was a,damage prayer, td which no ²⁷¹ objection was urged in argument and to which none could be taken, if there was any evidence to take the case to the jury. His first prayer instructed the jury that under the laws of Maryland every vehicle at rest on a public highway during the period from half hour after sunset to half hour before sunrise is required to display a light visible frota the rear of said vehicle; and that, if the jury should find from the evidence that defendant’s employees left the truck standing on the highway on the day of the accident at a time later than half an hour after sunset, without displaying a light on said truck visible from the rear thereof, such failure to display said light constituted negligence on the part of the defendant. Section 540 of article 27 of the Code, on which the prayer is based, in our opinion, has no reference to motor vehicles.

It is a codification of sections 1 and 2, chapter 53 of the Acts of 1918. Therein it is expressly provided: “That nothing contained in this Act shall be construed as altering or affecting the obligation of the users of motor vehicles to display the lights required by the laws of this state relating to motor vehicles.” (Section 3.) This act was approved on April 2nd, 1918. Five days earlier, on March 28th, 1918. there was approved a general motor vehicle law, designated as chapter 85 (Acts 1918), section 148 (3) of which provides as follows: “All motor vehicles in use on the public highways, excepting motorcycles, shall during the period of from one-half hour after sunset to- one-half hour before sunrise, display two or more white dr tinted lights, other than red, on the forward part of said vehicles, so placed as to be seen from the front, and of sufficient illuminating power to be visible at a distance of two1 hundred (200) feet in the direction in which displayed, and to reveal any person, vehicle or substantial object twenty-five feet ahead of the lamps, except when at rest it shall display at least one light, showing white to the front and red to the rear, carried to the left of the motor vehicle, visible from both front and rear for a distance of not less than two hundred feet. * * *” In the same subsection the requirements for motorcycles are set out. This section was repealed and re-enacted with amendments