Valench v. Belle Isle Cab Co.

¹²¹ Grason, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. On March 16, 1949, around 6:40 P.M., Mrs. Catherine L. Valench was a passenger in a taxicab owned by the Belle Isle Cab Company, Inc., which was operated by its chauffeur, Phillip S. Lee, east bound on Lombard Street, in Baltimore City. When the taxicab approached Light Street there was a street car, operated by the Baltimore Transit Company, which was stopped and was taking on and discharging passengers. The taxicab stopped about five feet behind the street car and when the operator of the street car had finished taking on and discharging passengers the door was closed.

The driver of the taxicab then moved “directly behind the right front door of the street car”. At that time the traffic light was red for east bound traffic. The taxicab was then about “a foot and a half” south of the street car, and about three and one-half feet north of the south curb of Lombard Street. Light Street is 71 feet wide from curb to curb, with a sidewalk on each side of the street, approximately 12 feet wide from the curb to the building line.

Lombard Street is 42 feet wide from curb to curb, with a 10 foot sidewalk, from the curb to the building line, on each side of the street. The traffic at this intersection is controlled by four automatic signals, located on each corner. The light switches from green to amber, to red, and the amber holds for three seconds on all four lights. Lee, the operator of the taxicab, testified that when the light turned green for east bound traffic on Lombard Street he could not see north on Light Street because the street car blocked his vision.

He said that the street car moved slowly and that he was attempting to pass the street car and he did not see an automobile, owned and operated by Lawrence Medlin, traveling south on Light Street until it was “past the street car when he hit me”. When he first saw the car driven by Medlin it was a matter of inches away. He saw it and the accident happened at the same time. His headlights were burning.

He testified that there was an amber ¹²² light for two or three seconds and he waited until the amber light had cleared and the green came on, and then he started to move. He testified: “I guess we were fifteen feet (15') into the intersection of Light Street, and Bang! * * * Well, it all happened so quick, sir. As I say, it was more like a flash: he came through and hit, all at the same time, he was going at that rate of speed; and the minute I saw him I hit the brakes and we hit, all at the same time.” Mrs. Catherine L. Valench instituted suit in the Baltimore City Court against the Belle Isle Cab Company, Inc., and Lawrence B. Medlin. Each defendant appeared and filed the general issue plea.

The case was submitted to the jury, and it rendered a verdict of $1,000.-00 against both defendants. The Cab Company filed a motion for judgment non obstante veredicto, or for a new trial. The lower court granted the motion for judgment n. o. v. and entered a judgment in favor of the Cab Company, from which judgment the plaintiff appeals. Medlin did not appeal from the judgment.

The only question in the case is whether the operator of the taxicab, at the time of the accident, was guilty of negligence, and if he was, the court committed an error in granting the motion for judgment n.o.v. and entering up a verdict in favor of appellee. We have said so often that it has become trite, that if there is any evidence, however slight, legally sufficient as tending to prove negligence, the weight and value of such evidence will be left to the jury. Cogswell v. Frazier, 183 Md. 654, 658 , 39 A. 2d 815 . And this is the law when the court considers the question of negligence on a motion for judgment n.o.v. “The Court, in deciding whether to grant demurrer prayers or motions for judgments n.o.v. resolves all conflicts in the evidence in favor of the plaintiff and assumes the truth of all evidence and such inferences as may naturally and legitimately be deduced therefrom which tend to support the plaintiff’s right of recovery.” ¹²³ Eisenhower v. Baltimore Transit Co., 190 Md. 528, 532 , 59 A. 2d 313, 315 .

It is provided by section 141, Article 66(4, Supplement of the Code, 1947, as follows: “(a) Green alone or ‘Go.’ “(1) Vehicles facing the signal may proceed straight through or turn right or left unless a sign at such place prohibits either such turn. All vehicles shall yield the right-of-way to other vehicles' and to pedestrians lawfully within the intersection at the time such signal is exhibited. “(2) Pedestrians facing the signal may proceed across