Sklar v. Southcomb
Henderson, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. These cases arose out of a collision on September 7, 1948 between two automobiles at the intersection of Cold Spring Lane and Dolfield Avenue in Baltimore City. Rebecca Sklar, a passenger in . the automobile driven by her husband, Rubin Sklar, brought suit for personal injuries against Charles J. Southcomb, the owner of the other automobile, and his son and agent, Charles Gordon Southcomb, a boy 17 years of age who at the time of the accident was making collections on his father’s newspaper route. Charles J. Southcomb and his insurance carrier sued Rubin Sklar for damages to Southcomb’s automobile.
The cases were consolidated, and at the conclusion of the testimony the court directed verdicts in favor of the Southcombs in each case. Summarizing the testimony most favorable to the plaintiff, Rebecca Sklar, it was shown that her husband was driving west on Cold Spring Lane in a funeral procession. There were twenty or more cars in line, all having their lights on and with stickers marked “Funeral” on their windshields, proceeding, at a speed of from 15 to 20 miles per hour, about 10 or 15 feet apart. The hearse and the first 14 cars crossed Dolfield Avenue 629 on a green light, and Sklar followed although the light turned red just before he entered the intersection.
He saw two lines of traffic on his left, completely blocking the east side of Dolfield Avenue, heading north. He also saw cars waiting on the west side of Dolfield Avenue, heading south. None of these cars made any effort to move when the light turned. When Sklar’s car was past the center line of Dolfield Avenue, the automobile driven by Gordon Southcomb came north on the west side of Dolfield Avenue around the other waiting cars, at a speed of about 35 miles per hour, and came in contact with the left front of Sklar’s car, turning it in a northerly direction.
The Southcomb car crossed the intersection, jumped the curb at the northwest comer and came to rest in a filling station there. The whole right side of the Southcomb car was damaged. Gordon Southcomb testified that he did not see the Sklar car prior to the collision. He testified that he knew it was customary in Baltimore City to allow funeral processions entering an intersection on a green light to proceed even after the light changed. “It is customary to let the funeral go ahead on a red light, you stop.” He knew there was a custom for the cars in a funeral procession to have their lights on and to carry stickers.
He did not observe the procession crossing Dolfield Avenue. He denied that he was on the wrong side of the street and testified he was not exceeding the speed limit. There was some testimony that Sklar was trying to catch up with the procession. At the time of the accident the Motor Vehicle law did not authorize funeral processions entering an intersection on a green light to continue through after the light has changed, although such a provision was enacted by chapter 598 of the Acts of 1949, (Code, Article 661^, section 141(f) ).
We may assume, without deciding, that Sklar was at fault and violated section 141 (c), which provides: “Red alone or ‘Stop.’ (1) vehicles facing the signal shall stop before entering the nearest crosswalk at an intersection or at such other point as may be in 630 dicated by a clearly visible line and shall remain standing until green or ‘Go’ is shown aloné.” Cf. section 140(a). However, it is clear that Sklar’s negligence could not be imputed to his passenger. Pennsylvania R. Co. v. State, 188 Md. 646, 655 , 53 A. 2d 562 . Nor is it contended that Charles J. Southcomb and his insurance carrier could recover unless Gordon Southcomb, his agent, was free from negligence contributing to the accident, although the rule is otherwise in the case of a bailee.
Price v. Miller, 165 Md. 578 , 169 A. 800 . Section 166(b) of Article 66provides: “No vehicle shall, in overtaking and passing another vehicle or at any other time, be driven to the left side of the roadway under the following conditions: ***(2)*** when
This is a preview of Sklar v. Southcomb. About 50% of the opinion remains. Read the complete opinion in RecordCite.