Palmer v. Scheid

Prescott, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The appellant-defendant, being dissatisfied with a judgment entered against him after an adverse jury verdict, in the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County, for damages resulting from an automobile collision, has appealed. He contends that the appellee-plaintiff was contributorily negligent as a matter of law in failing to comply with the Code (1957), Article 66½, Sections 227 and 233 (a), 1 and in failing to exercise reasonable care for his own safety. On December 16, 1957, a dry, cloudy day, at about 2:45 ⁶¹⁵ P.M.. the appellee Scheid and one Hall, both Internal Revenue Service agents, were traveling south on the Ritchie Highway.

This thoroughfare has four lanes for traffic: two each for northbound and southbound traffic, with a median strip, six and one-half feet wide, in the middle. Scheid was driving a government-owned Ford Sedan. At Ordnance Road, approximately a quarter of a mile north of the accident scene, he stopped in the right, or slow, lane at a red traffic light. Traffic was heavy in both southbound lanes.

While waiting for the light to change to green, he and his companion noticed a suspected liquor law violator at the wheel of a truck in front of them, also headed south. After the light changed to green, the southbound traffic began to move, and, in a short distance, the suspect turned left into Cherry Lane. Scheid decided to follow him, but as there was no urgency, thought he would continue south for a short distance, turn around and return to Cherry Lane. He proceeded south for a short distance, remaining in the right lane, until he came to a crossover, which turned out to be the location of the accident.

Beginning at the crossover and running north, the southbound portion of the highway is broadened by a cement apron to accommodate traffic coming into the highway from the Harbor Tunnel Cut Off. Scheid pulled over to his right onto this apron and stopped, in order to permit southbound traffic to clear from his rear before making his turn. From this point on, the testimony of the respective parties is conflicting in some of its aspects, but, for the purposes of this case, it must be considered in the light most favorable to the appellee. Scheid remained at a standstill on the apron for some 20 seconds, until all southbound traffic had cleared.

He looked to his rear, where his vision was unobstructed for about 300 yards to the crest of a hill, and there was no traffic in sight coming from the north toward him. He turned his car to the east and proceeded to the crossover, where he was required to stop, because of northbound traffic. About six feet of his automobile was in the crossover, which left, approximately, ten feet projecting into the southbound lane. He remained in ⁶¹⁶ this position for some 20 seconds, and was just about to pull out into the northbound lane, when he glanced to his left and saw the appellant’s southbound car in the fast lane coming down upon him.

There was no other southbound traffic in the immediate vicinity. Before Scheid could drive his car from the path of the oncoming vehicle, the rear portion of his car was struck, and he was injured as a result of the collision. Officer Griffith, of the County Police Department, arrived at the scene within a few minutes after the accident. He testified that he found no skid marks attributable to the appellant’s car; the appellant told the witness that he did not see Scheid’s car until it was too late to stop; and his reason for not seeing the car was that he was tuning his radio.

Under the above circumstances, the appellant contends that the law of this State required the appellee to ascertain that traffic was clear in both the southbound and northbound lanes, so that he