Opinion ID: 1964053
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Our prior holdings relative to the boulevard law, speed, and statutory violations as evidence of negligence

Text: We shall first review our prior holdings relative to the boulevard law as well as our prior holdings concerning whether statutory violations, such as speeding, are evidence of negligence. Maryland Code (1957, 1970 Repl. Vol.) Art. 66 1/2, § 11-403 (b) states that [t]he driver of a vehicle shall come to a full stop... at the entrance to a through highway and shall yield the right-of-way to other vehicles approaching on the through highway. Similar provisions are contained in § 11-403 (c) with reference to obedience to a stop sign and § 11-403 (d) relative to a street or roadway on which a `yield right-of-way' or `yield' sign is erected facing the driver on the approach to an intersection or merging point with another street or roadway.... In Shriner v. Mullhausen, 210 Md. 104, 122 A.2d 570 (1956), and Grue et al. v. Collins, 237 Md. 150, 157, 205 A.2d 260 (1964), among other cases, this Court has held that the language of Art. 66 1/2, § 11-404 relative to entering a highway from a private road or driveway and entering a paved public highway from an unpaved public highway is to be accorded the same interpretation as that given § 11-403. We have also held that automatic traffic signals come within the boulevard rule and, therefore, the law with reference to them should be accorded an interpretation similar to that relative to the statute pertaining to boulevards and stop signs. See, e.g., Clemons v. Bullock, 250 Md. 586, 598, 244 A.2d 240 (1968); Thompson v. Terry, 245 Md. 480, 486, 226 A.2d 540 (1967); and Eastern Contractors v. State, 225 Md. 112, 123, 169 A.2d 430 (1961). Many persons regard the boulevard rule as having been originally announced in Greenfeld v. Hook, 177 Md. 116, 132, 8 A.2d 888 (1939), where the Court said that the progenitor of the present § 11-403 was mandatory, that it is the positive and imperative duty of a person driving an automobile over an unfavored highway, when he approaches an intersecting highway lawfully designated as a `boulevard' or `stop street,' to stop before entering the intersection, and having stopped, to exercise reasonable care and diligence to discover whether traffic thereon is approaching the intersection, and, having entered the intersection, to yield the right of way to such traffic, by permitting it to proceed without interruption, and that that duty persists throughout his passage across the favored way. There are a number of cases, however, prior to Greenfeld which seem to embrace the rule. See, e.g., Carlin v. Worthington, 172 Md. 505, 192 A. 356 (1937); Blinder v. Monaghan, 171 Md. 77, 188 A. 31 (1936); Motor Tours v. Becker, 165 Md. 32, 166 A. 434 (1933); and Sun Cab Co. v. Faulkner, 163 Md. 477, 163 A. 194 (1932). Cases reaching this Court arising under the boulevard rule fall into eight categories, the suit of the favored driver against the unfavored driver, the unfavored driver against the favored driver, the passenger of an unfavored driver against the favored driver, the passenger of an unfavored driver against both drivers, the passenger of the favored driver against both drivers, the passenger of the favored driver against the unfavored driver, the passenger of the favored driver against the favored driver, and, finally, counterclaims so that the favored and unfavored drivers are suing each other. Representative of suits of the favored driver against the unfavored driver are Schwier v. Gray, 277 Md. 631, 357 A.2d 100 (1976); Pinchbeck v. Balto. Tank Lines, Inc., 258 Md. 211, 265 A.2d 238 (1970); Cornias v. Bradley, 254 Md. 479, 255 A.2d 431 (1969); Racine v. Wheeler, 245 Md. 139, 225 A.2d 444 (1967); Simco Sales v. Schweigman, 237 Md. 180, 205 A.2d 245 (1964); Brown v. Ellis, 236 Md. 487, 204 A.2d 526 (1964); Dunnill v. Bloomberg, 228 Md. 230, 179 A.2d 371 (1962); Shriner v. Mullhausen, supra, 210 Md. 104; and Carlin v. Worthington, supra, 172 Md. 505. The unfavored driver sued the favored driver in Hensel v. Beckward, 273 Md. 426, 330 A.2d 196 (1974); Creaser v. Owens, 267 Md. 238, 297 A.2d 235 (1972); Nicholson v. Page, 255 Md. 659, 259 A.2d 319 (1969); Trionfo v. Hellman, 250 Md. 12, 241 A.2d 554 (1968); Hardy v. Sandler, 245 Md. 621, 227 A.2d 3 (1967); Cooper v. Allen, 243 Md. 9, 219 A.2d 920 (1966); Zeamer v. Reeves, 225 Md. 526, 171 A.2d 488 (1961); Fowler v. DeFontes, 211 Md. 568, 128 A.2d 395 (1957); Ness v. Males, 201 Md. 235, 93 A.2d 541 (1953); State v. Gosnell, 197 Md. 381, 79 A.2d 530 (1951); and Greenfeld v. Hook, supra, 177 Md. 116. As a result of counterclaims both the favored and unfavored drivers were involved in litigation in Green v. Zile, 225 Md. 339, 170 A.2d 753 (1961), and Davis v. Taylor, 217 Md. 84, 141 A.2d 706 (1958). Cases in which passengers of an unfavored driver have sued the favored driver include Slutter v. Homer, 244 Md. 131, 223 A.2d 141 (1966); Schweigerath v. Berger, 237 Md. 68, 205 A.2d 290 (1964); Zeamer v. Reeves, supra ; State v. Marvil Package Co., 202 Md. 592, 98 A.2d 94 (1953); and Rinehart v. Risling, 180 Md. 668, 26 A.2d 411 (1942). Passengers of an unfavored driver sued both drivers in Savage v. Mills, Admr'x, 237 Md. 204, 205 A.2d 239 (1964); Grue et al. v. Collins, 237 Md. 150, 205 A.2d 260 (1964); Harper v. Higgs, 225 Md. 24, 169 A.2d 661 (1961); Brooks v. Childress, 198 Md. 1, 81 A.2d 47 (1951); Belle Isle Cab Co. v. Pruitt, 187 Md. 174, 49 A.2d 537 (1946); Madge v. Fabrizio, 179 Md. 517, 20 A.2d 172 (1941); and Blinder v. Monaghan, supra, 171 Md. 77. Passengers of a favored driver sued the unfavored driver in Quinn Freight Lines v. Woods, 266 Md. 381, 292 A.2d 669 (1972), and Pegelow v. Johnson, 177 Md. 345, 9 A.2d 645 (1939). Both drivers were sued by the passenger of the favored driver in Kopitzki v. Boyd, 277 Md. 491, 355 A.2d 471 (1976); Thompson v. Terry, 245 Md. 480, 226 A.2d 540 (1967); McDonald v. Wolfe, 226 Md. 198, 172 A.2d 481 (1961); Sun Cab Company, Inc. v. Cusick, 209 Md. 354, 121 A.2d 188 (1956); Baltimore Transit Co. v. O'Donovan, 197 Md. 274, 78 A.2d 647 (1951); Motor Tours v. Becker, supra, 165 Md. 32; and Sun Cab Co. v. Faulkner, supra, 163 Md. 477. The passenger prevailed in Kopitzki. In Terry, McDonald, Baltimore Transit Co., Motor Tours, and Sun Cab Co. v. Faulkner , the favored driver was absolved of liability. It is fair to say that in each of those latter instances this Court found that the negligence of the favored driver was not a proximate cause of the injury sustained even under the view we shall later express in this case. In Sun Cab Company, Inc. v. Cusick this Court referred to the boulevard rule in reversing a judgment entered against the favored driver in the trial court. There was testimony that he was driving at an excessive speed or at a great rate of speed, although he claimed to have been driving at a speed of only 25 miles an hour. The Court said, however, that it might, of course, be inferred from the length of the skid marks that he was driving more rapidly than that. It concluded: In the case at bar the driver of the taxicab had the right to assume that a driver on McElderry Street would stop and yield the right of way to him.... Even though the cab may have been traveling at a rapid rate of speed, it was the gross negligence of Lewis, and not the cab's rate of speed, that was the proximate cause of the accident. It would be mere conjecture to say that the cab might not have been struck if its rate of speed had been different. Id. at 360. The favored driver was sued by his passenger in Yellow Cab Co. v. Bonds, 245 Md. 86, 225 A.2d 41 (1966); White v. Yellow Cab Company, 216 Md. 286, 140 A.2d 285 (1957); and Sun Cab Co., Inc. v. Hall, 199 Md. 461, 86 A.2d 914 (1952). The passenger prevailed in all of those cases other than White. In no case, with the possible exception of Sun Cab Company, Inc. v. Cusick, supra , has the boulevard law been held to bar recovery from a favored driver in a suit brought by his passenger. Even there, as we have pointed out, this can hardly be said to be a clear-cut holding that the boulevard law insulates the favored driver from liability to his passenger for his negligence. We have attempted in our citation of various types of suits arising under the boulevard rule to include most, if not all, of the cases reaching this Court. It will be seen that the vast preponderance of this litigation has concerned suits between favored and unfavored drivers. Accordingly, much of what has been said with reference to the boulevard rule must be placed in that context. Certain principles emerge from those cases. The boulevard law is intended to expedite the flow of traffic on the boulevard. Creaser v. Owens, supra, 267 Md. 238, 246; Brown v. Ellis, supra, 236 Md. 487, 494-95; Zeamer v. Reeves, supra, 225 Md. 526, 532; Harper v. Higgs, supra, 225 Md. 24, 31; Sun Cab Co., Inc. v. Hall, supra, 199 Md. 461, 467; Greenfeld v. Hook, supra, 177 Md. 116, 125; and Blinder v. Monaghan, supra, 171 Md. 77, 83. The duty of an unfavored driver to stop and yield the right-of-way is mandatory, positive, and inflexible. Creaser v. Owens, supra ; Cornias v. Bradley, supra, 254 Md. 479, 496-97; Hardy v. Sandler, supra, 245 Md. 621, 624; Sun Cab Company, Inc. v. Cusick, supra, 209 Md. 354, 359; Greenfeld v. Hook, supra, 177 Md. 116, 126; and Blinder v. Monaghan, supra, 171 Md. 77, 84. Accordingly, an unfavored driver violates this requirement at his own risk. Thus, unless the doctrine of last clear chance is involved, an unfavored driver's claim as a plaintiff is defeated by his failure to yield the right-of-way, since he is then guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law. Schwier v. Gray, supra, 277 Md. 631, 634; Kopitzki v. Boyd, supra, 277 Md. 491, 495; Hensel v. Beckward, supra, 273 Md. 426, 431; Creaser v. Owens, supra, 267 Md. 238, 248; Trionfo v. Hellman, supra, 250 Md. 12, 18-19; Hardy v. Sandler, supra, 245 Md. 621, 625; Slutter v. Homer, supra, 244 Md. 131, 137; Cooper v. Allen, supra, 243 Md. 9, 14; Shedlock v. Marshall, 186 Md. 218, 235, 46 A.2d 349 (1946); and Greenfeld v. Hook, supra . It follows that an unfavored driver as a defendant in an action brought by a favored driver is liable, being guilty of negligence as a matter of law, in the absence of a showing of contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff. Schwier v. Gray, supra, 277 Md. 631, 634; Kopitzki v. Boyd, supra, 277 Md. 491, 495; Creaser v. Owens, supra, 267 Md. 238, 248; Pinchbeck v. Balto. Tank Lines, Inc., supra, 258 Md. 211, 216, 217; Racine v. Wheeler, supra, 245 Md. 139, 146; Brown v. Ellis, supra, 236 Md. 487, 495; Dunnill v. Bloomberg, supra, 228 Md. 230, 235; and Shedlock v. Marshall, supra, 186 Md. 218, 235. A corollary of that holding must be that an unfavored driver is liable to his own passenger in the absence of circumstances such as those discussed and found in Slutter v. Homer, supra, 244 Md. 131, barring the claim of the passenger. A favored driver may assume that others will obey the law and he need not anticipate their violation of the law. Creaser v. Owens, supra, 267 Md. 238, 243; Hardy v. Sandler, supra, 245 Md. 621, 624; Thompson v. Terry, supra, 245 Md. 480, 487; Schwiegerath v. Berger, supra, 237 Md. 68, 70; Dunnill v. Bloomberg, supra, 228 Md. 230, 234; McDonald v. Wolfe, supra, 226 Md. 198, 203; Zeamer v. Reeves, supra, 225 Md. 526, 532; Lilly v. State, 212 Md. 436, 442, 129 A.2d 839 (1957); Fowler v. DeFontes, supra, 211 Md. 568, 576; Sun Cab Co., Inc. v. Hall, supra, 199 Md. 461, 467; Sonnenburg v. Monumental Tours, 198 Md. 227, 234, 81 A.2d 617 (1951); Brooks v. Childress, supra, 198 Md. 1, 7; Baltimore Transit Co. v. O'Donovan, supra, 197 Md. 274, 278; Belle Isle Cab Co. v. Pruitt, supra, 187 Md. 174, 180; and Rinehart v. Risling, supra, 180 Md. 668, 675. However, the favored driver may not proceed in complete disregard of obvious danger. Racine v. Wheeler, supra, 245 Md. 139, 145-46; Brown v. Ellis, supra, 236 Md. 487, 495; Green v. Zile, supra, 225 Md. 339, 345; and State v. Marvil Package Co., supra, 202 Md. 592, 599. It follows from what we have said relative to contributory negligence as a defense to a favored driver's claim against an unfavored driver that the boulevard rule does not relieve the favored driver from the duty to observe that degree of ordinary care for his own safety which is imposed upon all men. From that it further follows that the boulevard rule does not relieve the favored driver from the duty to use that degree of care for a passenger in his vehicle which one expects a normally prudent driver to exercise on behalf of his passenger. In Fowler v. DeFontes, supra, 211 Md. 568 at 574, our predecessors said, Of course, although the favored driver has the right to assume that the unfavored driver will yield the right of way to him, that does not mean that the traveler on the favored highway has an absolute, unqualified, and complete right of way at all times and under all circumstances. This right of way is to be enjoyed with due regard to the circumstances then and there existing. Carlin v. Worthington, 172 Md. 505, 508, 192 A. 356; Shedlock v. Marshall, supra, 231, a statement that was repeated with a citation to Fowler in Lilly v. State, supra, 212 Md. 436, 442-43. The boulevard law is not applicable to a vehicle making its exit from the boulevard. Palmer v. Scheid, 223 Md. 613, 616-17, 166 A.2d 244 (1960), and Safeway Trails, Inc. v. Smith, 222 Md. 206, 212, 159 A.2d 823 (1960). There are other factors which can remove a case from the boulevard rule. For instance, in McCann v. Crum, 231 Md. 65, 188 A.2d 537 (1963), Judge Hammond said for the Court: If the entering car has cleared the intersection and reached a point where it does not interfere with the favored driver's right of way through the intersection, the boulevard law ceases to be applicable. Ness v. Males, 201 Md. 235 [, 239-40, 93 A.2d 541 (1953)]; Shaneybrook v. Blizzard, 209 Md. 304 [, 312-13, 121 A.2d 218 (1956)]. Cf. McDonald v. Wolfe, 226 Md. 198 [, 172 A.2d 481 (1961)]. Id. at 68. To like effect see Grue et al. v. Collins, supra, 237 Md. 150, 157. Our cases have referred to the fact that the relative rights of the parties at an intersection of a boulevard and an unfavored highway are not to be held to depend on nice calculations of speed, time or distance lest the purpose of the boulevard rule, to accelerate the flow of traffic over the through highway at the permitted speed, be thwarted. [2] See, e.g., Brown v. Ellis, supra, 236 Md. 487, 495-96; Zeamer v. Reeves, supra, 225 Md. 526, 532; Harper v. Higgs, supra, 225 Md. 24, 36; Brooks v. Childress, supra, 198 Md. 1, 11; and Greenfeld v. Hook, supra, 177 Md. 116, 126. Also, some of our boulevard cases contain statements such as that [t]here was no sufficient evidence of excessive speed ... to warrant the submission of that question to the jury. See, e.g., Zeamer v. Reeves, supra, 225 Md. 526, 533; Davis v. Taylor, supra, 217 Md. 84, 87; Blinder v. Monaghan, supra, 171 Md. 77, 83; Motor Tours v. Becker, supra, 165 Md. 32, 36; and Sun Cab Co. v. Faulkner, supra, 163 Md. 477, 480. The statement regarding nice calculations is true because it is only in a rare instance in our cases involving the boulevard law where it may fairly be said that the speed of the favored driver was a proximate cause of the accident in such manner that the question should be considered by the jury. In those instances where a suit has been brought by an unfavored driver against a favored driver the statements relative to excessive speed on the part of a favored driver and nice calculations in determining negligence are applicable because the failure of the unfavored driver to yield the right-of-way renders him guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law in the absence of evidence bringing the last clear chance doctrine into play. This is well represented by State v. Gosnell, supra, 197 Md. 381, a case involving the claim of an unfavored driver against two favored drivers, where Judge Grason said for the Court: Assuming, without deciding, that the testimony warrants a finding that the appellees' cars were traveling at an unlawful rate of speed, and were racing, nevertheless, Frizzell was without right to violate the law in traveling across the boulevard. Id. at 390. To similar effect see Shriner v. Mullhausen, supra, 210 Md. 104, 118. The matter of nice calculations of speed, time or distance was put in a slightly different manner in Goosman v. A. Duie Pyle, Inc., 206 F. Supp. 120 (D. Md. 1962), rev'd on other grounds, 320 F.2d 45 (4th Cir.1963), quoted by Judge Singley for the Court in Kopitzki v. Boyd, supra, 277 Md. at 497. Judge Northrop said in Goosman : The prohibition against making nice calculations does not prevent a jury and judge from making all calculations of every nature; the prohibition pertains only to those close, hair-splitting calculations which cannot be expected of a reasonably prudent favored driver when immediately confronted by an intrusion upon his right of way. Where the times and distances are great, the calculations are no longer `nice,' and the prohibition is inapplicable. Id. at 127. (Emphasis in original.) In a case involving the claim of the passenger of an unfavored driver against the favored driver or the claim of a passenger of a favored driver against the favored driver, the fact that the favored driver is violating the speed law does not become a jury question unless the evidence is sufficient to warrant a conclusion that the violation is a proximate cause of the injury concerning which complaint is made. See, for instance, Nicholson v. Page, supra, 255 Md. 659, 664, where Judge Barnes said for the Court, The defendant correctly observes that the `mere violation of a statute will not support an action for damages, unless there is legally sufficient evidence to show the violation was a proximate cause of the injury complained of,' citing our decision to that effect in Fowler v. Smith, 240 Md. 240, 248, 213 A.2d 549, 555 (1965). In Ford v. Bradford, 213 Md. 534, 541, 132 A.2d 488 (1957), Judge Prescott said for the Court, It has been held by the Court on many occasions that the violation of a statutory regulation is evidence of negligence, and if such violation causes or contributes to the injuries complained of it constitutes negligence. Miles v. Webb, 162 Md. 269, 272, 159 A. 782 [(1932)]. The Court went on in Ford to hold whether an individual had failed to comply with [a] statute and whether this failure caused or contributed to the [plaintiff's] damages presented jury questions. Norris v. Wolfensberger, 248 Md. 635, 237 A.2d 757 (1968), concerned an accident in which a motorist was said to have violated a statute requiring that a left-hand turn be made from the extreme left-hand lane. Judge Horney there said for the Court: As the turning motorist in this case was not in the extreme left-hand lane within the meaning of § 225 (e), the trial court should not have ruled as a matter of law that she was free of negligence.[3] On the other hand that does not mean that the court should have granted a directed verdict against the turning motorist for having been contributorily negligent. It is clear that the passing motorist was one of the category of persons whom the statute was intended to protect and that the accident was of the nature of those the statute is intended to prevent. Nevertheless the happening of the accident did not, since the violation of a rule of the road is not negligence per se, compel a finding of an irrebuttable presumption of negligence or even negligence, Kelly v. Huber Baking Company, [4] 145 Md. 321, 125 Atl. 782 (1924), though it may, if the violation was the proximate cause of the accident, create a prima facie case of negligence and put the burden on the other party of showing that he was justified in violating the rule. Miller v. Mullenix, 227 Md. 229, 176 A.2d 203 (1961). And see Liberto v. Holfeldt, 221 Md. 62, 65, 155 A.2d 698, 700 (1959). Ordinarily therefore the questions of negligence and proximate cause would be for the jury to decide. [3] In some cases it may be a jury question as to whether a motorist was in the extreme left-hand lane just as it is often a jury question as to whether a motorist kept as close as practical to the curb or edge of the roadway. See Feinglos v. Weiner, 181 Md. 38; Mauchle v. Panama-Pacific International Exposition Co., 174 Pac. 400 (Cal.); McGregor v. Weinstein, 225 Pac. 615 (Mont.); Wines v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co., 246 S.W.2d 525 (Mo.). [4] In Kelly v. Huber Baking Co., 145 Md. 321, the Court (quoting a part of Chapter 297 of Huddy on Automobiles) said at p. 335 that `[t]he distinction between mere evidence of negligence and negligence per se  is very marked, in that in the former there must be an adjudication as to whether or not the violation constitutes negligence, whereas in the latter negligence necessarily follows the proof of the violation   . The rule is different in some jurisdictions where the regulation involved relates to the so-called law of the road. Driving on the wrong side of the road is not so clearly a wrongful act as driving at a prohibited speed, for the circumstances may be such as to excuse a violation of the law of the road. Hence the violation is generally said to be prima facie negligence, and the violator of the rule is given an opportunity to rebut the inference of negligence arising against him.' Id. at 640-41. (Emphasis in original.) The first of the cases we have cited in which a passenger of a favored driver was permitted to recover from the favored driver is Sun Cab Co., Inc. v. Hall, supra, 199 Md. 461. There the passenger recovered a judgment which was affirmed by this Court on appeal. The boulevard law was held applicable. The question before the Court was: 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. The Court said: 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. Id. at 464. It pointed out that of the number of cases involving the relative duties of vehicles at a boulevard intersection, in only one, Baltimore Transit Co. v. O'Donovan, supra, 197 Md. 274, was the plaintiff a passenger in the vehicle on the favored highway. Chief Judge Marbury further said for the Court: Appellant urges that speed is not negligence in a favored driver, and is irrelevant in determining the respective rights between favored and unfavored drivers, citing Brooks v. Childress, supra and Sonnenburg v. Monumental Motor Tours, supra In Brooks v. Childress, [198 Md. 1, 7], we said there was no evidence that the Childress tractor-trailer was exceeding the speed limit, and the driver `had no reason to believe that Wesley would disregard the boulevard law and pull out in the road in front of him.' In Sonnenburg v. Monumental Motor Tours, [198 Md. 227, 234], we said: `The driver of a taxicab or any other driver is not under a duty to anticipate, in the absence of evidence, that other drivers will often  or ever  cross negligently in violation of the boulevard law.' (Emphasis supplied.) And, further on, discussing Greenfeld v. Hook, 177 Md. 116, 8 A.2d 888, 136 A.L.R. 1485, one of the earliest cases, we said: `And in other passages in that opinion the court recognized that the driver on the favored highway does not have an absolute right to proceed under all circumstances.' Neither of these cases holds that a driver on a favored highway can proceed without regard to the possibility of some other driver usurping his right of way. Boulevards are posted for the purpose of accelerating traffic, but they are not constituted speedways for reckless drivers who do not watch what is going on. It is true that the driver on a boulevard is not obliged to anticipate that someone will negligently come into his path, but he is not excused from liability to his passengers if someone does come in, and he fails to avoid a collision because he did not look in time to see what was inevitable. There is testimony in the case before us, as we have said, which would permit the jury to find that had the cab driver been looking, he could have seen the other car entering the intersection, and he could have seen this when he was far enough away to have avoided the accident, unlike the O'Donovan case, where there was no such evidence. We do not alter or change or destroy the effect of our previous decisions on the boulevard law when we hold that there was sufficient evidence in this case of the negligence of the cab driver to go to the jury. Id. at 466-67. The second such case was Yellow Cab Co. v. Bonds, supra, 245 Md. 86. There a taxicab collided with a vehicle in front of it on a boulevard. That vehicle had been braked suddenly to avoid collision with another car which had failed to stop or yield the right-of-way at an intersection with that boulevard. Suit was by a passenger in the cab. As Judge Horney put it for the Court, [T]he question on appeal [was] whether the cabdriver was guilty of negligence which was also a proximate cause of the accident. In holding that he was, the Court said: That there can be more than one proximate cause of an accident is clearly established. While the negligence of the cabdriver must have been a proximate cause in order to warrant recovery by the passenger, it did not necessarily have to be the sole proximate cause of the accident. The negligence of the operator of the intruding automobile did not excuse the cab owner and driver from liability for damages. It was enough that the negligence of the cabdriver, in concurrence with that of the other motorist, proximately caused or contributed to the injuries the passenger sustained. Yellow Cab Co. v. Hicks, 224 Md. 563, 168 A.2d 501 (1961); Armiger v. Baltimore Transit Co., 173 Md. 416, 196 Atl. 111 (1938); Brawner v. Hooper, 151 Md. 579, 135 Atl. 420 (1926). Other cases are collected in 3 M.L.E., Automobiles, § 162. The argument of the appellants is that the boulevard law relieved them from liability because the operator of the cab was the favored driver, but this fact did not relieve the cabdriver of the obligation to use due care under the circumstances of this case. Harper v. Higgs, 225 Md. 24, 169 A.2d 661 (1961); Belle Isle Cab Co. v. Pruitt, 187 Md. 174, 49 A.2d 537 (1946). Nor did the fact that a concurrent tort-feasor violated the boulevard law affect the claim of the appellee against the appellants. Rather, since the accident was the result of concurrent contributing causes, and there is evidence that the cabdriver was not as alert as he should have been, the case, besides involving a violation of the boulevard law, also involves a violation of § 224(a) of Article 66 1/2 of the Code (1957) providing that: `The driver of a motor vehicle shall not follow another vehicle more closely than is reasonable and prudent, having due regard for the speed of such vehicles and the traffic upon and the condition of the highway.' A driver, charged with keeping these factors in mind, is obliged to act reasonably and prudently, Sieland v. Gallo, 194 Md. 282, 71 A.2d 45 (1950), and whether or not he did so is generally a question of fact for the jury to determine. Christman v. Weil, 196 Md. 207, 76 A.2d 144 (1950). Id. at 90-91. (Emphasis in original.) Although the defendant favored driver in each of those cases was a taxi operator and it might be argued that his contract for safe carriage of his passenger placed upon him a higher duty of care than an ordinary driver, the Court appeared in no way to rest its decision on that fact. No common carrier was involved, however, in Kopitzki v. Boyd, supra, 277 Md. 491, decided by this Court after the decision below in the Court of Special Appeals. We did not conceive of Kopitzki as enunciating any new law. As Judge Singley put it for the Court in Kopitzki, The question presented [in it was] whether a driver on a favored boulevard involved in a collision with a driver on an unfavored road who fails to yield the right-of-way is entitled to the protection of the boulevard law in a negligence action filed against him by his passenger. We heard Kopitzki prior to its consideration by the Court of Special Appeals. The favored driver there contended that the trial court erred in not directing a verdict in his favor against his passenger, saying that the boulevard law was plainly applicable, and that, notwithstanding evidence of speeding and drinking on his part, the sole proximate cause of the accident was the failure of the unfavored driver to yield the right-of-way to him as the driver on the favored boulevard. There was testimony from a driver in the left-hand lane of the boulevard that the defendant favored driver passed him at a speed of 70 to 80 miles per hour at a point approximately 150 to 200 feet from the vehicle of the unfavored driver at the moment it began to move onto the highway. Judge Singley fully reviewed for the Court our prior boulevard cases. He quoted from J. Webb, Bothersome Boulevards, 26 Md. L. Rev. 111, 125 (1966), in which it was said: There is, therefore, no justification for further extension of the privilege of the favored driver into situations where he has originally been driving unlawfully or carelessly. Ordinarily, in most boulevard cases it is not material what the favored driver was doing. The accident would never have happened if the unfavored vehicle had yielded right of way, and the conduct of the unfavored driver is the sole proximate cause of the accident. But if it can be shown that the favored driver could have avoided the accident if he had been operating lawfully and with due care, then the negligence of the favored driver should be an issue for the jury. On the few recent decisions involving the negligence of the favored driver cited above, it can be argued that this is the present trend. It was observed in Kopitzki that this prediction ha[d] acquired additional support with citations to Pinchbeck v. Balto. Tank Lines, Inc., supra, 258 Md. 211; Cornias v. Bradley, supra, 254 Md. 479, and Racine v. Wheeler, supra, 245 Md. 139. In Kopitzki it was pointed out that the other driver on the favored highway, who admitted that he too was exceeding the speed limit at the time, was able to avoid striking (the entering vehicle), without jamming on his brakes. The Court concluded that [t]he jury could have found that it was Kopitzki's inattention that was a proximate cause of the accident. This was negligent conduct which would support [the passenger's] claim against Kopitzki, and [she] was entitled to have the jury consider it, citing Brown v. Ellis, supra, 236 Md. at 495. There Judge Prescott, in discussing contributory negligence, said for the Court: Appellant contends that he is within the boulevard rule on this issue as a matter of law. There can be little doubt that the decisions of this Court have jealously guarded and upheld the favored driver's right of way in boulevard cases. In fact, the Maryland decisions seem to go as far as any of our sister States in upholding such rights of way. However, no decision of this Court has ever stated that such a favored driver has a complete and absolute right of way which relieves him of all duty to exercise reasonable and ordinary care for his own safety. On the contrary, this Court, as early as 1939, stated in Greenfeld v. Hook, 177 Md. 116 [, 8 A.2d 888 (1939),] that `the traveller on the favored highway [does not have] an absolute, unqualified, and complete right of way, at all times and under all circumstances, over persons who have lawfully entered the street, nor [can he] proceed thereon in blind indifference to the danger to which his progress may expose others,' but, `where a traveller on a favored highway knows or should know that his progress will endanger a traveller entering the same from a restricted highway, he must exercise reasonable care to avoid injuring him.' See also Belle Isle Cab Co. v. Pruitt, 187 Md. 174 [, 49 A.2d 537 (1946)]; Shedlock v. Marshall, [186 Md. 218, 46 A.2d 349 (1946)]; Fowler v. DeFontes, 211 Md. 568 [, 128 A.2d 395 (1957)]; 4 Md. L. Rev. 207, 213 [(1940)]. Id. 236 Md. at 495.