Taxicab Co. v. Hamburger

AdtciNS, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. This suit grew out of a collision between the car of ap-pellee and the taxicab of appellant at the comer of Oak Street and North Avenue in the City of Baltimore. ¹²⁶ Henry E. Hamburger, the appellee, was driving east on North Avenue approaching Oak Street and the driver of appellant’s taxicab was driving! west on said avenue, also approaching Oak 'Street. According to all-the witnesses the collision occurred at a point near the curb on the north side of North Avenue and the west side of Oak Street. Oak Streets starts at North Avenue and runs north.

Hamburger testified that as he approached Oak Street he was south of the east bound car track on North. Avenue; that he drove to about the centre of Oak Street when he looked east on North Avenne to see if the traffic was clear enough to make the turn, and all he saw coming was one machine half way in the block, a touriug ear going west; that knowing he had ample time to' make the turn he endeavored to do it and, as he got just about across the east bound car track, he noticed a taxicab speeding beyond the touring car which he passed, driving rather fast past the touring car. “I saw him coming and after he got a little further over here I seen an accident was inevitable and I could not get out of the way. I endeavored to turn my car this way (indicating bis left) to retrace my steps in order to run with him that he might pass me this way (indicating his: right) without getting me; I think I got beyond this point (indicating) when he hit me; he didn’t hit me at the front end of my oar, but he hit me in the centre. Q. Why is it you could not get out of his way ?

A. Because he was speeding; he was. coming there (indicating) and I must retrace my steps and I did trying to make that way (indicating) ; had I gone straight ahead going up Oak Street, I would have gotten the full force of the blow, and if I turned my wheel I thought I would only get a glancing blow, which I did; had he hit me full I would have turned over. Q. Did you see the driver of the taxicab or notice whether or not anything was done by the driver of the taxicab to avoid the accident?’ A. He may have endeavored to avoid the accident. I did not see what he did to try to avoid it.” The witness further testified that he was driving about fifteen miles an hour; that he was not going so fast he could ¹²⁷ not stop bis car, “but I did not think I eould stop it in timo to avoid bim at tbe speed be was going; be would reach tbe corner before I did and of course I endeavored to> turn around to get out of bis way, thinking I had a better opportunity to get out of tbe way that way, so I tried to turn.” “Q. When you saw tbe taxicab' you did not make any effort to stop your ear? A. When I saw tbe taxicab tearing down on me I was that far across the street I did not think to make any effort to1 stop my car would do' me any good, and I endeavored to turn around to follow bim or keep away from bim.” Tbe testimony offered by tbe appellant, the defendant below, tended to prove that the taxicab was not going more than ten or fifteen miles an hour, and to negative tbe idea of negligence on tbe part of its driver, it tended also to prove that plaintiff tried to cut tbe southwest corner in order to get across ahead of the taxicab; and that- tbe taxicab was too near the car when it made tbe turn to be stopped in time to avoid tbe accident.

There are three bills of exception. Two relate to rulings on evidence, and tbe third to the ruling on the prayers. Harry D. Dorn, one of plaintiff’s witnesses, testified as follows: “Q. Where were you, in what way did you come in connection with tbe accident and what do you know about it? A. He passed me around Guilford Avenue, this taxicab, lie drove in past me on the right and nearly took my front end as he passed me; my wife was sitting in the car and I said- (Objected to.) Q. State what happened after that occurred; what did you do ?

A. I nearly turned over getting out of his way, and when we got to Oak Street I said to my wife-(Objected to.) Q. What did you do?' A. I said he got it, that he got into the accident which T thought he was going to get me.” Counsel for defer dant moved to strike out the answer about what happened at Guilford Avenue, on the ground that it could not have any hearing on what happened in this case, which motion was overruled. This ruling was the subject of the first exception. ¹²⁸ Doth continued to testify as follows: “Q'. Do yon remember the position in which the ears, were at the time of the accident? A. No, I do not remember.

Q. Yon do not remember which, way they were facing' or anything else? A. I do not; I did not see