PICCHIO, ADM'X v. Scruggs

PBR Curiam. The trial judge, finding no primary negligence, directed a verdict for the defendant motorist in a suit by the administratrix to recover damages for the estate of the deceased, a pedestrian who was struck while walking across the street. The administratrix claims here that the questions of primary negligence and contributory negligence were both for the jury to determine. We disagree.

The plaintiff produced a police officer who arrived at the scene of the accident, the intersection of 57th Avenue and M Street in Hillside, Prince George’s County, five minutes after its occurrence at 7:20 p.m. on October 22, 1965. He found the-1964 Volkswagen of the defendant at rest most of it south of, but part of it, in the intersection in the southbound lane. His-measurements found 57th Avenue to be 28 feet wide and M Street 27 feet 5 inches wide. It was “rainy, misty” and dark.

The illumination at the intersection was poor. He found skid marks of 28 feet laid down by a car that was proceeding south-on 57th Avenue. (“The skid marks coming south on 57th Avenue * * * started on the north side of M Street and where they ended, whether they ended in the intersection or behind’ the intersection, I don’t recall.”) He took photographs of the scene and these photographs and his testimony reveal that the neighborhood and the intersection are unsophisticated and rough. There was no traffic light, no sidewalks or walkways, no marked crosswalks, and the intersection was neither square nor sym~ ⁵⁷⁶ metrical.

The lines of supposed sidewalks would have to be projected diagonally across the intersection in order to connect, rather than straight across. For example, the policeman said: “The west corner of 57th Avenue on M Street, on your right side there protrudes about a foot or two foot further than the other side.” The officer testified that the defendant told him that the pedestrian “stepped out in front of his vehicle,” and “she had stepped from out of nowhere into the front of his vehicle.” The plaintiff called the defendant as her witness. He testified to a dismal evening and “misty rain,” that he was wearing his glasses which gave him 20-20 vision, his headlights were on low beam, his windshield wipers were