Court Opinion

ID: 9746576
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-27 14:28:02.10671+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:25:15.032758
License: Public Domain

WILNER, Judge,
dissenting.
For the reasons noted in my dissent in Beynon v. Montgomery Cablevision Limited Partnership, 351 Md. 460, 718 A.2d 1161 (1998), I respectfully dissent from the conclusions reached in Part I of this Opinion and from the judgment. The Majority’s allowance of pre-impact damages is based entirely on the evidence that the decedent accelerated and turned his wheel. This evidence does not speak to the decedent’s final thoughts before impact. Indeed, as in Beynon, it is very likely that his only thought for those few seconds was averting the crash. Decedent’s fright cannot be objectively determined or even reasonably inferred.