Mintzer v. Miller

Barnes, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The appellants, Dr. Martin L. Mintzer and his wife, Eleanor, as plaintiffs below sued the appellee, George Washington Miller, Jr., defendant below, in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County to recover damages resulting from a rear-end collision of the defendant’s automobile with that of the plaintiff. The Circuit Court (Shearin, J.) directed a verdict for the defendant at the end of the plaintiffs’ case and from the judgment entered upon that verdict the plaintiffs have appealed to this Court. In considering the evidence in this posture of the case, we must view the evidence and all reasonable inferences to be drawn from the evidence in a light most favorable to the plaintiffs.

Langville v. Glen Burnie Lines, 233 Md. 181, 183 , 195 A. 2d 717, 718 (1963). Applying this rule the record discloses the following facts. Dr. Mintzer was driving his automobile, with his wife Eleanor as a passenger, in a southerly direction on Viers Mill Road on August 29, 1962. At approximately 12:30 p.m. he brought his automobile to a stop in the curb lane approximately eight feet behind an automobile which had stopped for the red light at the intersection of Viers Mill Road and Connecticut Avenue in Montgomery County.

Viers Mill Road at this intersection runs north and south and for southbound traffic there are two driving lanes and one left-hand turn lane for traffic turning into Connecticut Avenue. There is a soft shoulder to the right of the right-hand southbound lane approximately 20 feet in width. When Dr. Mintzer stopped his vehicle in the right-hand or curb lane, there were no vehicles to his immediate right on the soft shoulder of the road. There were no automobiles in the lane to his left or in the left turn lane.

At this point Dr. Mintzer’s automobile was struck with substantial force from the rear by the automobile owned and driven by the defendant Miller, and was ⁵⁰⁸ driven by this force across the lane to Dr. Mintzer’s left, across the left-hand turn lane and into the road-dividing strip of concrete. The collision caused extensive damage to the rear deck and trunk of Dr. Mintzer’s automobile, leaving the vehicle inoperable at the scene of the collision. Mrs. Mintzer sustained personal injuries. Both Dr. Mintzer and his wife testified at the trial.

During Dr. Mintzer’s cross-examination it was developed that just before the impact Dr. Mintzer “heard screeching of brakes” which “seemed to be just an instant before we were hit or possibly a split second.” Dr. Mintzer further testified that he had a very brief conversation with the defendant at the scene of the accident and that the defendant said “he was sorry, that his-brakes gave way.” Mrs. Eleanor Mintzer testified on cross-examination that the defendant told the policeman “over and over again, 'My brakes went out. My brakes went out.’ ” The trial judge was of the opinion that the directed verdict for the defendant was required by our decision in Langville v. Glen Birntie Lines, supra, but we are of the opinion that the present case is distinguishable from the Langville case. In Lang-ville there was a rear-end collision, but the plaintiff passenger admitted that the brakes had been operating properly and that a sudden and unexpected brake failure was involved, the cause of which was such that a reasonable inspection or test of brakes