Court Opinion

ID: 9758870
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 23:53:39.969599+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:28:57.203848
License: Public Domain

Singley, J.,

dissenting:

I respectfully dissent, not because I find persuasive the rationale of the opinion of the Court of Special Appeals — that the employer of a professional chauffeur is entitled to rely on the policy of the State as articulated in Code (1957, *2681967 Repl. Vol.), Art. 66 1/2, § 114A (d), which subjects the license of a professional driver to suspension only after he has accumulated 15 points — but rather, because of what I view as a much more compelling reason.
It seems to me that Stevenson’s record of motor vehicle violations must be considered in the light of his employment. In a period of five years, he had been charged with six moving violations, for which he had accumulated a total of four points at the time of his employment. None of these could be characterized as serious; none of them seems to have been related to an accident, and all of them, taken together in the context of his normal employment, were not enough, as I see it, to put a prospective employer on notice that Stevenson was, in the language of the majority, “an incompetent driver whose use of the van . . . posed an unreasonable risk of physical harm to others.”
Assuming, for the sake of the argument, that Stevenson’s driving record was sufficient to charge the employer with the duty of making further inquiry, there is nothing in the record to suggest that such an investigation would have revealed additional adverse information.
For this reason, I think General Valet’s motion for a directed verdict should have been granted, and I would affirm the Court of Special Appeals in reversing the judgments entered by the Superior Court of Baltimore City.
Judge McWilliams and Judge Digges have authorized me to say that they concur in this opinion.