Opinion ID: 1534752
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: the williams and perlin appeal

Text: We shall next consider the question of the liability of the operator and owner of the tractor trailer, appellants Williams and the Perlin Packing Co., Inc. (Perlin). The main premise upon which appellants Williams and Perlin base their appeal is that the intersection of Main Street and U.S. Route 13 is not a single intersection but two intersections and that being the case, the jury should have been instructed that if they believed that when Mrs. King reached the second intersection, that is Main Street with the northbound lanes of U.S. Route 13, she had a red light, then Williams had the right-of-way as a matter of law. Counsel for Williams and Perlin ably argued this point; however, to adopt their thesis we would have to depart from the holding of this Court in Packer v. Hampden Trans. Etc. Co., supra . The appellants Williams and Perlin take sustenance in the dictum found in a case of more recent vintage, Belle Isle Cb. v. Trammell, supra, wherein they contend that this Court re-examined the Packer decision and postulated that the real test as to whether one or two intersections exist, is the distance separating the two thorough-fares. However, a close reading of Belle Isle reveals obvious distinctions other than the distance separating the streets. The streets in question in Belle Isle were Harford Avenue, Central Avenue and Oliver Street in Baltimore City. All three streets were two-way streets but none were dual lane with median strips. Harford Avenue and Central Avenue run convergently for some distance, finally crossing Oliver Street and merging into one street, a short distance north of Oliver Street. There were no mechanical traffic signals at the intersections, just stop signs. The three streets were not marked or separated in any manner to indicate where one street ended and the other began. Although Central and Harford Avenues had been designated by ordinances as throughways, there was nothing to so indicate. Accordingly, the Court was dealing with three two-way streets. In the instant case you have two two-way thorough-fares controlled by traffic signals, each synchronized with the other; the distinction between the two cases, as we have indicated, rested on other factors than the distance between the streets. This Court, failing to subscribe to appellants Williams' and Perlin's theory that this case presents two intersections instead of one will next look at Williams' testimony. He testified that he was driving the tractor trailer weighing about 31,000 pounds, carrying approximately 22,000 pounds of beef, at about 45 miles per hour. The weather was foggy and he was driving through patches of fog, but as he got to the city limits of Salisbury the fog persisted; he had also eased up on the accelerator when suddenly the fog lifted and about 50 feet in front of him he saw both the traffic light, which was then amber or caution, and the school bus in the northbound lane. He hit his brakes, which were air brakes, and the tandem wheels started jumping up and down and he plowed into the middle of the school bus. He testified that it all happened very quickly. He fell out of the truck after it stopped and was injured. Mrs. King testified that she talked with Williams while they were both being driven to the hospital by a state trooper and that, at that time, Williams said it was so foggy that he had not seen any traffic light. It is obvious that where, as we have just recited, the testimony reveals a dispute over so many material facts that the lower court was correct in refusing to grant appellants Williams' and Perlin's motion for a directed verdict. The appellants Williams and Perlin also contend that it was error for the lower court not to instruct the jury on the theory of unavoidable accident under the facts of the case as requested by them. We think it would have been error for the court to have granted such an instruction. The facts present an accident which occurred at an intersection controlled by automatic traffic signals which were in working order. It is inconceivable that the accident was not due to the negligence of one or both of the parties operating the vehicles involved. The presence of fog merely placed a greater burden of diligence on the operators of both vehicles. See York Motor Express Co. v. State, 195 Md. 525, 533, 74 A.2d 12, 15 (1950). As additional grounds for appeal they have objected to the court's striking the testimony of Lorenza Price, an eight-year-old passenger on the bus. A reading of the responses of this youthful witness to the questions of counsel fully demonstrates that, as was stated by the court, she either did not understand the questions as asked or did not know what she was saying when she attempted to answer them. The lower court exercised sound discretion in striking out her testimony. Robert v. State, 220 Md. 159, 165, 151 A.2d 737, 739 (1959). We should also add that her testimony was of no probative value and it is not discernible that the appellants were prejudiced by its being stricken. Maryland Chemical v. Monn, 241 Md. 127, 215 A.2d 731 (1966). The appellants likewise objected to the admission in evidence, over the objection of their counsel, of the deposition of Jerry Price, a nineteen-year old passenger on the bus, who at the time of the trial was in the military service in the State of California. There was testimony to the effect that his father had written him about the trial but that he could not attend although the month prior thereto he had been home on leave. His deposition had been taken at the request of the appellant Perlin. We think that this situation is controlled by Rule 413, titled Use of Deposition, which provides: a. When May Be Used. At the trial or upon the hearing of a motion or an interlocutory proceeding, any part or all of a deposition, so far as admissible under the rules of evidence, may be used in accordance with any one of the following provisions:    3. Witnesses Not Available  Exceptional Circumstances. The deposition of a witness, whether or not a party, may be used by any party for any purpose against any other party who was present or represented at the taking of the deposition or who had due notice thereof, if the court finds:    (2) that the witness is out of the State, unless it appears that the absence of the witness was procured by the party offering the deposition;   . There was no evidence that the absence from the state of the witness Jerry Price was procured by any connivance on the plaintiffs' part and we think the trial judge properly allowed its admission in evidence. The appellants also contended that the lower court abused its discretion in refusing to grant a new trial on the grounds that: (a) The amounts of the verdicts were excessive; (b) because of newly discovered evidence pertaining to the correctibility of the eye injury sustained by plaintiff Chandler; (c) because of the later discovery of a vision impairment of one juror who allegedly related to the jury, during their deliberations, his own experience with a similar eye injury as that complained of by one of the plaintiffs, and performed some form of a demonstration for them in the jury room; (d) because of possible influence on the jury of newspaper articles published during the trial. The rule that the granting or denying of a motion for a new trial rests with the sound discretion of the trial court is so well established as not to require elaboration. The question as to whether damages awarded are excessive is a matter resting in the sound discretion of the trial judge As was said by Judge Hammond (now Chief Judge), speaking for the Court in Safeway Trails, Inc. v. Smith, 222 Md. 206, 159 A.2d 823 (1960) at p. 223: It was for the trial judge to determine whether the verdict shocked his conscience. He determined it did not. In the instant case we do not believe that the lower court's refusal to grant a new trial because of alleged excessive damages was an abuse of its sound discretion. Likewise, the question of the misconduct of a juror is also within the sound discretion of the court, Safeway Trails, Inc. v. Smith, supra, at pp. 216-18, Rent-A-Car Co. v. Fire Ins. Co., 163 Md. 401, 408-09, 163 A. 702, 705 (1933). The question of the existence of newly discovered evidence was likewise a matter to be left to the sound discretion of the trial judge who had heard all of the testimony and was thoroughly familiar with the issues involved. There was no manifest error or abuse of discretion which would warrant this Court in disturbing the action of the lower court. The contentions relative to the possible influence on the jury of improper articles published during the trial, we regard as frivolous. For the reasons set forth herein, we are of the opinion that the judgments entered in the lower court should be affirmed. Judgments affirmed, appellants to pay the costs.