Sun Cab Co., Inc. v. Hall

MARBURY, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court. This case consists of two appeals in one record from judgments obtained against the appellant in the Court of Common Pleas of Baltimore City by a passenger, and the husband of a passenger in one of the appellant's ⁴⁶³ taxicabs. The damages were the result of a collision between the taxicab, which was being driven west on Lombard Street in Baltimore City, and an automobile bound north on Gilmor Street. The suits were also brought against the owner and driver of the automobile.

Directed verdicts were returned against them, but there is no appeal on their behalf. The cab company filed demurrer prayers which the court reserved, and after verdicts against it, judgments N.O.V. in its favor were refused. Lombard Street, on which the taxicab was proceeding, was protected by stop signs, and was therefore a through highway or boulevard, subject to the provisions of Sections 178, 187(a), and 187(c) of Article 66of the Annotated Code (1947 Supp.). The accident occurred at approximately 2 A.M. on August 3, 1946.

The weather was clear and dry, and the corner was lighted with an arc light. There was testimony by a disinterested witness that he saw the cab coming west on Lombard Street, and the automobile coming north on Gilmor Street. He said the northbound vehicle came at least 40 or 45 miles an hour, and never made an attempt to stop at the intersection. The cab driver was going about 20 or 25 miles an hour.

The cab was in the center of the westbound car tracks, and the other car was straddling the car tracks on Gilmor Street. The owner and the driver of the northbound automobile both said it stopped before crossing the street, and both said they looked and saw nothing. When first seen by them, the taxicab was 6 to 8 feet away. The plaintiff said that when the driver approached Gilmor Street, he was talking to another man sitting across the seat.

The cab was going fast. Before it got to Gilmor Street, she saw the automobile coming up that street. She said it was going very slowly. She did not see it stop at Lombard Street, but she saw it come into the intersection.

At that time, the taxicab was about one-third of a block from the corner, and there was no other traffic. She told the cab driver he was going to hit the car. She said he had his head turned ⁴⁶⁴ to the right over his. shoulder, talking to the man sitting across the seat from her, and “he swiveled his head around and applied the brakes, but it was, too late.” All of this was denied by the cab driver. He said he was about 30 feet from the corner of Gilmor Street and going about 25 miles per hour, when he glanced to his left and saw the car come out of Gilmor Street.

He immediately put his foot on the brake, but the automobile continued on and came across Lombard Street. The police officer testified that he found 23 feet of skid marks from the taxicab. The impact between the vehicles took place in the northeast quadrant of the intersection, so that the northbound automobile was a little more than half way across. What we have before us is whether, considering the testimony most favorable to the plaintiffs, there was any evidence of primary negligence on the part of the cab driver, or whether there was any basis for the application of the doctrine of- last clear, chance.

It is earnestly contended by the appellant that the cab driver had the right to assume that the automobile was not going- to violate the law, that his inattention, if any, was not negligence under the circumstances, and that when he first became aware that the other vehicle was coming into the intersection, it was too late for him to stop. We have had in this court a number of cases which discussed the relative duties of vehicles at a boulevard intersection. The earlier cases were collected and discussed in Shedlock v. Marshall, 186 Md. 218 , 46 A. 2d 349 . None of these cases involved a claim by a passenger in a car on the favored highway against the driver of that car.

They are chiefly concerned with the respective rights of those on the favored highway and those on the unfavored highway. Subsequent to the decision in Shedlock v. Marshall, supra, other boulevard cases have been decided by this court: Belle Isle Cab Co. v. Pruitt, 187 Md. 174 , 49 A. 2d 537 ;. Baltimore Transit Co. v. O’ Donovan, 197 Md. 274 , 78 A. 2d 647 ; State, Use of ⁴⁶⁵ Frizzell v. Gosnell, 197 Md. 381 , 79 A. 2d 530 ; Brooks v. Childress, 198 Md. 1 , 81 A. 2d 47 , and Sonnenburg v. Monumental Motor Tours, 198 Md. 227 , 81 A. 2d 617 . In only one of these cases was the plaintiff a passenger in the vehicle on the favored highway.

That was Baltimore Transit Co. v. O’ Donovan, supra. In that case, a passenger on a bus was injured as a result of a collision between the bus and an automobile which had entered the favored highway on which the bus was traveling. She recovered a judgment against the bus