Ruella v. MacCauley

Per Curiam. The questions raised on this appeal are not new, nor are they difficult to determine. The defendant below (appellant here) ran his truck into the rear of a stationary motor vehicle, in which the plaintiff was seated. At the trial, the defendant admitted liability; thereby conceding that the collision occurred, his negligence caused it and the plaintiff had suffered some damage as a result thereof.

Cf. Smith v. Dolan, 170 Md. 654, 657 . The appellant claims that the trial court did not adequately instruct the jury on the burden of proof upon the plaintiff as to his injuries, damages and losses; and, although conceding that the plaintiff was entitled to an appropriate instruction on the law as to the aggravation of a pre-existing condition as an element of damage, contends the court gave an improper instruction concerning the aggravation of the plaintiff’s preexisting neck condition under the evidence in the case. The appellant cannot prevail in either of his contentions.

His principal complaint on the first point is that the court ⁴⁶³ refused to grant his prayer on the question of burden of proof as to the plaintiff’s injuries and losses. In Ager v. Baltimore Transit Co., 213 Md. 414, 425 , a personal injury case, we stated: “While