Rodriguez v. Lynch

McWilliams, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. This case has a “man bites dog” air about it. The trial judge directed a verdict in favor of appellee (Lynch) at the conclusion of the plaintiff’s case. From the ensuing judgment Rodriguez, a 9 year old native of Spanish Morocco, has appealed.

At 11:00 A.M., on 30 July 1964, Lynch was westbound on Elson Street in Carole Highlands. Rodriguez and another boy, on bicycles, were southbound on 16th Avenue. When Lynch saw that they were not going to stop and yield the right of way, as required by the stop sign on the northwest corner of the intersection, he tried to stop. Rodriguez ran into the right side of his car.

His bicycle “bounced onto the ground.” After the impact Rodriguez “was standing on the ground * * * on his feet * * * with his left arm through the windshield.” The other boy went safely behind Lynch’s car. We must decide whether the evidence considered in a light most favorable to Rodriguez together with the proper and legitimate inferences to be drawn therefrom is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of primary negligence on the part of Lynch. Gatling v. Sampson, 242 Md. 173, 175 , 218 A. 2d 202 (1966). Officer Richard Shaner, of the Prince George’s County Police Department, arrived at the scene of the accident soon after it happened.

He was appellant’s first witness. It was a sunny day, he said, and the street was dry. Elson Street is 30 feet wide, 16th Avenue is 26 feet 4 inches wide. He said the right front tire of Lynch’s car was 44 feet 3 inches from a “power pole on the northeast corner” and 37 feet 8 inches “from a fire plug.” He said the pole was “here” and “the fire plug here.” Counsel must have assumed we are latter-day Merlins because there is nothing in the record which tells us where “here” is.

The diagram and the photographs of the intersection are missing from the transcript. Officer Shaner also described the front ⁶²⁵ tire as being approximately 25 to 30 feet from the “crosswalk of Elson Street” but he did not volunteer, nor was he asked, which crosswalk he had in mind, the east or the west. He said “the bicycle was laying at the right rear of * * * [Lynch’s] vehicle” the damage to which, in addition to the windshield, he described as “scratches to the right front fender, the door, and * * * some damage to the right rear fender.” He “observed” no skid marks. There was a "warning sign 100 feet east of the intersection, he testified, but no one asked him what the sign warned against, nor did he volunteer any information in that regard.

He described the tree-covered bank of earth on the northeast corner and explained how it “partially obstruct [ed] the view” of both Rodriguez and Lynch. He talked to' Lynch “at some length.” He said there was no evidence Lynch had been drinking and that he “appeared to be normal.” He thought Rodriguez “failed to yield the right of way.” Counsel for Rodriguez then read to the jury excerpts from a pre-trial deposition of Lynch. No other parts of the deposition were offered in evidence. It was established by the excerpts that the boys were approximately two car lengths from the intersection when Lynch first saw them.

He had been going 15 to 20 miles per hour, he said, but he couldn’t judge the speed of the bicycle. He estimated it was “probably just a matter of seconds” after he saw the boys that Rodriguez hit the side of his car. Pressed to be more exact he guessed it was “between five and ten [seconds], possibly nearer five.” Rodriguez came in contact with his car “just in front of the door line to the right front fender.” Lynch did not swerve to the right or left. He recalled seeing some signs in the area saying “Danger!

Watch out for children.” Rodriguez next produced Lurty C. Houff. He said he was a retired policeman and that he had served for many years with the Accident Investigation Unit. His testimony was concerned exclusively with arithmetical aspects of time, speed and distance problems. It is interesting and it seems to be factually accurate but it has little or no application to the facts of this case.

Except for two doctors the only other witness was Rodriguez himself. At the time of trial he was 11 years old and his family had moved to California. He couldn’t remember anything ex ⁶²⁶ cept that he had been hit. His attention was directed, on cross-examination, to a pre-trial deposition taken in December 1965.

He said he did not remember being asked, “Paul, when you were coming down that hill on your bicycle, you didn’t stop for the stop sign, did you?” He said he did not remember answering, “No.” He said he wouldn’t deny it, however. Asked if there was a time when he did remember, he said, “I can’t remember if there was a time that I did remember.” Appellant cites Miller v. Graff, 196 Md. 609 , 78 A. 2d 220 (1951), in support of his argument that the