Opinion ID: 2296554
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Did the lower court err when it declined to admit the testimony of Franklin Beard?

Text: Mr Beard, an employee of Western Maryland, testified that he was employed at Port Covington at the time of the accident. He was asked: Q And are you familiar with the method that was available for snow removal work? A Yes, sir. Q I don't mean necessarily [at] Western Maryland, but generally the work facilities that are available and the procedures that are followed? A I am familiar with the equipment that we use on the Western Maryland snow removal at Pier 7, 8 and 9. Q And what would be your opinion as to the work that was done by Western Maryland in snow removal as compared with the usual practices that are involved in the area? Mr. Heyman [counsel for Griffis]: Objection, Your Honor. The court: Sustained. We have held that proof that a defendant conformed to the standards of his industry is often weighty evidence that the act in question is reasonable and non-negligent, but that it is not necessarily conclusive. Honolulu Ltd. v. Cain, supra, 244 Md. at 598; Smith v. Bernfeld, 226 Md. 400, 174 A.2d 53 (1961). The difficulty here is that Beard's qualifications, as elicited by the questions, only reached the equipment used by Western Maryland. We have long held that the custom and practice of a party, as distinguished from general custom and practice, is inadmissible since it is not helpful in a determination of what constitutes reasonable care. Chesapeake & Potomac Tele. Co. v. State, use of Carey, 124 Md. 527, 93 A. 11 (1915); Consolidated Gas Electric Light & Power Co. v. State, use of Smith, 109 Md. 186, 201-02, 72 A. 651 (1909); Baltimore & Ohio R.R. Co. v. Shipley, 39 Md. 251, 255 (1874). We find no error in the court's having sustained the objection to the question asked Mr. Beard. Since Western Maryland made no formal proffer of what his testimony would have been, we can only assume that it would have been confined to Western Maryland's practices. A consideration of the lower court's instructions as a whole convinces us that the law was fairly and completely covered by the charge. Gast, Inc. v. Kitchner, supra, 247 Md. 677, 688; Lloyd v. The Yellow Cab Co., 220 Md. 488, 495, 154 A.2d 906 (1959); West v. Belle Isle Cab Co., 203 Md. 244, 251, 100 A.2d 17 (1953); Bull Steamship Lines v. Fisher, supra, 196 Md. 519, 529. Finding no error, we shall affirm. Judgment affirmed; costs to be paid by appellant.