White v. Yellow Cab Company

Bruñe, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court. This is another boulevard intersection collision case. The plaintiff-appellant, White, was a passenger in a cab owned by one of the defendants-appellees, Yellow Cab Company (the “Cab Company”), and driven by the other, its employee, Green. The cab was traveling north on Carey Street, which is a through highway in Baltimore.

The other car involved in the collision, driven by one McMillan, was proceeding west on Mosher Street. The point of impact was in the intersection — about twelve feet west of the east curb line of Carey Street and about sixteen feet south of the north curb line of ²⁸⁸ Mosher Street. White sued the Cab Company' and Green ; they impleaded McMillan and a man named Campbell, who owned the car driven by McMillan, as third party defendants. The plaintiff did not amend his declaration so as to join these third parties as defendants.

The case was submitted to the jury on four issues: (1) the negligence of Green and the Cab Company; (2) the negligence of McMillan; (3) the contributory negligence of White, the plaintiff; and (4) damages. The jury found Green, the Cab Company and McMillan to have been negligent, found White free from negligence and assessed his damages at $6500. Judgments were entered on these findings for $6500 in favor of White against the Cab Company and Green and in favor of these defendants against the third party defendants for $3250. The Cab Company and Green, within the appropriate time, filed a motion for judgment n.o.v., which was granted; and final judgment was thereupon entered in their favor and against White for costs.

White appeals. (The judgment in favor of the original defendants against the third party defendants was also stricken out. No claim of White’s against them is presented on this appeal.) White rests his appeal upon the alleged inattention of Green to the operation of the cab. White claims that just before the accident Green turned his head to reply to a statement by White with regard to Green’s driving and that in consequence of Green’s turning his head he failed to observe the McMillan car and so failed to avoid the collision, and that this constituted evidence of negligence on Green’s part which was sufficient to take the case to the jury.

It may be noted that although White’s alleged statement to Green was that Green was speeding, White does not base his argument in this Court upon any claim of excessive speed. In considering this case we proceed in accordance with the general rule, which has been repeatedly stated, that in reviewing cases where the question is whether or not a defendant’s motion for a directed verdict or for a judgment n.o.v. should have been granted, this Court must resolve all conflicts in testimony in favor