Miller v. Hall

Bond, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court. In a suit against Miller by Hall, who, when a passenger in a taxicab, was injured in a collision with an automobile owned and driven by Miller, judgment was recovered against Miller for damages, and on appeal he brings before this court questions of admissibility of evidence received at the trial, and of the correctness of instructions to the jury. The taxicab in which Hall was riding was traveling south on Schroeder Street, in Baltimore City, at night, and Miller’s car, driven westwardly on Franklin Street, collided with ¹¹³ the cab at the intersection of two streets. There was evidence tending to prove that Miller was driving at an excessive rate of speed and that he failed to yield the right of way to the taxicab coming from his right; and no question is raised of the legal sufficiency of that evidence to support a finding of negligent driving by Miller contributing to the accident.

The first question argued by the appellant is not brought up by an exception, and there appears to have been, in fact, no definite ruling contrary to the appellant’s contentions. The plaintiff, questioned by his attorney on the identity of the car that collided with the taxicab, stated twice that at the time of the collision he did not know what car it was, but that he had learned later from the defendant’s pleading guilty in the traffic court, and from hearing him admit that it was his car. The defendant moved that the first reference to the plea of guilty in the traffic court be stricken out, and it was stricken out. Upon motion made to strike out the second reference, the plaintiff’s attorney agreed that it should be stricken out, and the court expressed an opinion that the question asked was not admissible as it was framed, but did not announce a ruling otherwise.

A question whether in the traffic court the plaintiff heard Miller admit ownership of the car was then put and answered without objection. jSTo further action was taken by the defendant’s attorney; the stenographic record contains no note of an exception taken; therefore, if the admission of any of that testimony was erroneous, the error is not open to correction in this court. Bowie v. Evening News Co., 151 Md. 285, 293 , 134 A. 214 . Error in this testimony would be without importance in any event, because the facts brought out were later elicited from Miller himself, in proper form, as will appear. Miller was called as a witness for the plaintiff and asked whether he had not in the traffic court pleaded guilty to having failed to give the taxicab the right of way, and he answered that he had so pleaded.

Exception was taken to the allowance of the question. It seems sufficient to observe that this is evidence of an admission of fault in making the cross ¹¹⁴ ing, relevant to an issue of negligence in the collision, and a proper subject of testimony by any competent witness. It is objected that as, concerning the right of way, the declaration filed in the case did not specify violation of the law (Code, art. 56, sec. 209) as a ground of liability, the question of violation is not within the issues on which the parties went to trial, and proof on it is therefore not admissible. But that argument restricts the issues raised by the pleadings too narrowly.

A charge of negligence in a collision of vehicles approaching each other at right angles at a street crossing by its very nature brings up a question of yielding the right of way, and gives notice of the pertinency of evidence on that question. The question is too clearly involved in the allegations made to require