Opinion ID: 1534752
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: the king appeal

Text: We will first consider the grounds for appeal urged by the appellants King. The main thrust of the King appeal is predicated on the proposition that when Mrs. King, operating the bus on Main Street, entered the intersection she did so on a green light and that although this particular intersection is controlled by two separate but synchronized traffic lights, one suspended over each section of dual highway U.S. Route 13, it should be considered as one intersection and applying the boulevard rule, once she had entered the intersection on the green light, she had the right-of-way through the entire intersection even though the lights may have changed as she proceeded through the intersection. As a corollary to this, the Kings contend that appellant Williams, operating the tractor trailer on U.S. Route 13, was duty bound to yield the right-of-way and that such failure to yield was the sole proximate cause of the accident  there being no primary negligence on the part of Mrs. King. Reliance is placed in Packer v. Hampden Trans. Etc. Co., 206 Md. 407, 111 A.2d 849 (1955), a case presenting a similar type double-light intersection where Cold Spring Lane traverses Roland Avenue in the City of Baltimore. In Packer this Court held that it was the legislative intent that such an intersection, when viewed in the light of the definitions of Intersection, Art. 66 1/2, § 2(20), Code (1951) (now Art. 66 1/2, § 2(a) (20), Code (1957)), and Roadway, Art. 66 1/2, § 2(46), Code (1951) (now Art. 66 1/2, § 2(a) (47), Code (1957)), be construed as a single intersection and not as two intersections. This Court agrees that the ruling of Packer is apposite to the instant case and we find nothing in the facts of this case or in this Court's opinion in Belle Isle Cab v. Trammell, 227 Md. 438, 177 A.2d 404 (1962), a case involving three streets and readily distinguishable, which would remove this case from under the Packer construction. However, we cannot agree with appellants King when they gratuitously assume that there was no evidence in this case that Mrs. King entered the intersection on something other than a green light. There is no question but that there was substantial evidence showing Mrs. King entering the intersection with a green light in her favor. However, there was legally sufficient evidence in the testimony, giving rise to reasonable inferences, from which the jury might fairly have deduced that Mrs. King did not have a green light when she entered the intersection. The trial court must be concerned with the legal sufficiency of the evidence, rather than the weight of the evidence, and as long as there is such evidence the jury must pass upon it. As was said by this Court seventeen years ago in Valench v. Belle Isle Cab Co., 196 Md. 118, 75 A.2d 97 (1950) at p. 122: 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. Fowler v. Smith, 240 Md. 240, 246, 213 A.2d 549, 544 (1965) and Ford v. Bradford, 213 Md. 534, 541, 132 A.2d 488, 492 (1957). The testimony of Pote, who was driving his pickup truck westerly on Main Street while Mrs. King was approaching easterly on Main Street, is to the effect that some two hundred and fifty feet from the intersection he looked up and saw the light to be red. The appellants King endeavor to rationalize this statement, and while so doing minimize the importance of his testimony, by contending that Pote observed the light as red immediately prior to its going through its green-amber cycle, and that it went through that cycle between the time Pote observed the light and the instant of the impact. The green-amber cycle would have required 36 seconds for Main Street traffic. Pote testified that he was traveling at about 10 to 15 miles per hour when he observed the red light about 250 feet from the intersection. At the speed of 10 miles per hour he would have covered the distance between his point of observation of the red light and the turn off at the intersection in approximately 17 plus seconds, which would have had him stopped at the turn off at the intersection approximately 19 seconds before the impact, which is contrary to his testimony. On the other hand, Pote could have observed the traffic signal during its red interval and have traveled this 250 feet between where he first observed it and his turn off at the intersection during any 17 seconds of the 30-second-red interval. This latter construction would weaken, if not destroy, Mrs. King's contention that the light on Main Street was green when she entered the intersection. Yet, Pote's testimony is susceptible to this interpretation and hence gives rise to inferences of negligence on Mrs. King's part which were properly referable to the jury for its consideration. As to whether Pote's version of his observation of the color phase of the traffic signal and the inferences fairly deducible therefrom or the testimony of the youthful passengers on the bus and of other witnesses, as to the color phase of the traffic signal at the time of their observations, should prevail were matters of fact for the jury to decide. Nor can we discount the testimony of the defendant Williams to the effect that as his tractor trailer approached the intersection the traffic light was amber for traffic on U.S. Route 13, which meant that at that time it was red for traffic on Main Street. This would be corroborative of the inferences which may be drawn from Pote's testimony. Again, this was evidence for the jury to consider. In view of the variance of the testimony of the witnesses, it would have been error for the lower court to have directed a verdict in favor of the appellants King. Appellants King also complain that the lower court erred in giving inadequate and ambiguous instructions to the jury concerning the relative rights and duties of the operators of vehicles at intersections controlled by automatic traffic signals and that, in the absence of negligence on the part of Mrs. King, the jury should not have been allowed to speculate that the speed of the school bus or Mrs. King's failure to see the tractor trailer prior to the impact was a proximate cause of the accident. Likewise, if the jury found that the light turned from green to amber as she entered the intersection, the jury should then have been instructed that she had the right to proceed with caution through the intersection. Art. 66 1/2 § 193 (b) (1), Code (1957). Although the trial judge in his instructions to the jury might well have been more explicit on certain nuances of the boulevard rule, we think that it was adequate and without error. In Aleshire v. State, 225 Md. 355, 370, 170 A.2d 758, 765 (1961) this Court said: Requested written instructions, even though they be correct expositions of the law, need not be granted, provided `the matter is fairly covered by instructions actually given;   .' Maryland Rule 554 b 1. The trial judge incorporated in his instructions the language of § 209 (a) of Art. 66 1/2, Code (1957) (Motor Vehicle Law) together with his own pertinent comments as follows: Now at the time of this collision there was in effect in Maryland the following law which is codified as Section 209(a) of Article 66 1/2 of the Annotated Code of Maryland. `No person shall operate a vehicle, streetcar or trackless trolley, as defined in this article, over any public highway of the state recklessly or at a rate of speed greater than is reasonable and proper, having regard to the width, traffic and use of the highway, or so as to endanger the property and life or limb of any person or without due regard to wear upon the said highway so as not to damage, unnecessarily or unreasonably the same.' The court in its instructions also quoted § 193 of Article 66 1/2 relating to traffic-control signal legend as follows:    `Whenever traffic is controlled by traffic-control signals exhibiting the words `go,' `caution' or `stop,' or exhibiting different colored lights successively one at a time the following colors only shall be used and the said terms and lights shall indicate 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 pedestrians lawfully in the intersection at the time such signal is exhibited. (b) Amber alone or `caution' when shown following the green or `go' signal. (1) `Vehicles facing the signal shall stop before entering the nearest crosswalk at the intersection but if such stop cannot be made in safety a vehicle may be driven cautiously through the intersection. And, of course, (c) relates to the red alone. `Vehicles facing the signal shall stop before entering the nearest crosswalk at an intersection or such other point as may be indicated by a clearly visible line and shall remain standing until the green or `go' is shown alone.' After quoting §§ 209 (a) and 193 of Art. 66 1/2, the trial judge gave this instruction: Now, if you find that the collision of the vehicles was caused or directly contributed to by a violation of the Motor Vehicle Law I have just read to you by Barbara A. King, then your verdict must be for the plaintiffs against the defendants Barbara A. King and Douglas King. And if you find that the collision of the vehicles was caused or directly contributed to by violation of the Motor Vehicle Law which I have just read to you by Bernard Williams, then your verdict must be for the plaintiffs against the defendants Perlin Packing Company and Bernard Williams. The lower court also gave the following instruction concerning the right-of-way of one who has lawfully entered an intersection: Now under the law of Maryland a driver who has lawfully entered an intersection with a favorable traffic light has the right to continue across and complete the passage of the intersection even though the light changes in the middle of the passage and even though a vehicle on an intersecting road may have the green light after such change. From these instructions there is no question but that the jury was told that if Mrs. King entered the intersection with a favorable light she had a continuing right-of-way across the intersection. We do not think that the lower court's inclusion in its instructions to the jury of the general language of the Statute, Art. 66 1/2, § 209(a), to the effect that no person shall operate a vehicle over any public highway recklessly or at a speed greater than is reasonable or proper, having regard to the width, traffic and use of the highway, or so as to endanger the property and life or limb of any person was prejudicial to the appellants King. By all accounts at the time of the accident it was extremely foggy, the visibility was poor and both drivers involved were operating vehicles of considerable weight, length and width. We are of the opinion that the appellants King cannot complain of any prejudicial error in the lower court's instructions to the jury.