Morris Ex Rel. Morris v. Williams

Per Curiam. Once again this term we are asked to review a trial court’s direction of a verdict for a defendant whose automobile struck a child. On our review of the particular facts we conclude that the case was correctly classified as a “dart-out”, and the trial court’s action must be affirmed. Appellee, Prince Edward Williams, was driving west on Chase Street in Baltimore on October 10, 1966.

It was about 5:30 p.m. and he was proceeding on this straight, level street at a rate five to ten miles per hour below the twenty-five mile per hour speed limit. A school with a fenced playground occupied the entire north side of the block of Chase Street between Wolfe Street on the west and Washington Street on the east. Although school was no longer in session, appellant Levette C. Morris, eight years old, was on that playground with some other children. Four steps led downward from the playground to a fourteen foot wide sidewalk along Chase Street.

When Levette’s older. sister began chasing her with a tennis racket, Levette fled from the playground, down the steps, across the sidewalk and eight feet out into Chase Street, where she was- struck by appellee’s car. The ac ⁶²⁷ cident occurred a substantial distance east of the intersection of Chase and Wolfe Streets. Levette did not pause nor look before she ran into the street, and in fact kept on running even though her sister called to her to stop. Neither she nor her sister saw appellee’s car until it actually struck her.

At trial in the Superior Court of Baltimore City, defendant did not testify as to how the accident happened, because he was not called as an adverse witness. He rested at the conclusion of the plaintiff’s case without offering any evidence, moving for a directed verdict. As the trial judge reserved her ruling on the motion and submitted the case to the jury, it became a motion for judgment n.o.v. under Maryland Rule 563. After the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, awarding $5,000 total damages, Judge Jones granted judgment n.o.v. in favor of the defendant.

The law applicable in this type of case has been reviewed by us recently with such frequency it need not here be examined at great length. Dawson, Adm’r v. Christopher, 258 Md. 413 , 265 A. 2d 906 (1970) ; Faulkner v. Cummings, 256 Md. 552 , 261 A. 2d 468 (1970) ; Spence v. Wiles, 255 Md. 98 , 257 A. 2d 164 (1969). It is sufficient to observe that when a child is struck by an automobile, in an area of the street where vehicles normally have the right of way, some unusual or special set of circumstances beyond the