Maryland case law › State Ex Rel. Parks v. Insley

State Ex Rel. Parks v. Insley

181 Md. 347 (1943) · Court of Appeals of Maryland
Court of Appeals of MarylandDisposition: AffirmedSloan, J.✓ Good law
HoldingThis is a wrongful death action brought under the Workmen's Compensation Act (Section 72, Article 101, Code 1939) by the widow of Roland C.

Sloan, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. This is a suit brought under the Workmen’s Compensation Act (titled as if brought under Lord Campbell’s Act) for the use of Sadie M. Parks, widow of Roland C. Parks, deceased, and for the use of Oxford Cabinet Company (a Pennsylvania corporation), his employer, appellants, against Charles W. Insley, appellee, the owner and operator of the automobile by which Roland C. Parks was killed. From a judgment for the defendant, on a directed verdict, the equitable plaintiffs appeal. At the time of his death, Mr. Parks was in the employ of the Oxford Cabinet Company (of Pennsylvania), and his widow was awarded compensation, after the decision in Oxford Cabinet Co. v. Parks, 179 Md. 680 , 22 A. 2d 481 , and the equitable plaintiffs sue over under Section 72, Article 101, Code (1939).

At thé conclusion of the plaintiff’s case, the defendant offered a motion for a directed verdict because: “1. There is no evidence in the case legally sufficient to entitle the plaintiff to revocer against him. “2. He has not been shown to have been guilty of any negligence. “3. The uncontradicted evidence shows that the deceased was guilty of negligence directly contributing to his death. “4.

The sole proximate cause of the accident was negligence on the part of the deceased. “5. It appears from the evidence offered by the plaintiff that the injury to and death of the deceased may have been the result of his own negligence or of defendant’s 349 negligence, and the plaintiff has therefore not met the burden of proof.” The trial judge, in passing on the motion, said that in °his opinion there was legally sufficient evidence of the defendant’s negligence, but that the evidence also showed such lack of care and caution on the part of the deceased as to hold him guilty of contributory negligence. The only contention of the equitable plaintiffs on the appeal is the ruling of the court with respect to contributory negligence; nothing else is discussed by them or decided by this court. The accident occurred on September 25, 1940, about 7.15 in the morning, on Harford Road in Baltimore City, about midway between Markley and Grindon Avenues in front of Knecht’s Filling Station.

A misty rain was falling. The appellee’s car was northbound on Harford Avenue; the deceased, Parks, was evidently crossing from the east to the west side of Harford Road. Harford Road, at the place of the accident, is 63.5 feet between curbs. Two car tracks occupy 15.5 feet in the center of the road, and it is 24 feet from the curb on each side to the nearest rail.

The defendant is the only witness who saw the accident happen, and his evidence is in the record by deposition, taken under the pre-trial rule of the General Rules of Practice and Procedure effective September 1, 1941. The defendant’s car was running in the northbound railway track, and hit the deceased when the latter had reached the first or east rail, the right front part of the car striking him. He was thrown toward the car, hitting and crashing into the right side of the right windshield and the right corner post of the windshield frame, which was dented; the man landed on the right front fender, and was carried there a short distance until thrown off in the street. There were two other witnesses who testified, but they did not see the impact; they couldn’t have known anything until they heard the crash of the victim with the defendant’s windshield;

This is a preview of State Ex Rel. Parks v. Insley. About 50% of the opinion remains. Read the complete opinion in RecordCite.