Court Opinion

ID: 9649679
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 15:05:58.074407+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:12:13.738923
License: Public Domain

*498
Murphy, C. J.

dissenting:

While the Court has properly identified the issue, i.e., “whether this is the ‘rare’ case where the question whether Kopitzki’s negligence was a proximate cause of Mrs. Boyd’s injury was properly submitted to the jury,” it has erred in concluding that it was such a case; I, therefore, respectfully dissent.
We noted in Creaser v. Owens, 267 Md. 238, 297 A. 2d 235 (1972), that when the boulevard rule is applicable, the unfavored driver who fails to yield the right-of-way is negligent as a matter of law and is the sole proximate cause of the collision except in the rare case where his conduct is rescued by the doctrine of last clear chance or when the issue of contributory negligence on the part of the favored driver is properly submitted to a jury, i.e., whether the favored driver was guilty of negligence that was a proximate cause of the accident. Creaser v. Owens, supra (267 Md. at 245). Excessive speed of the favored driver on the through highway will not ordinarily be considered a cause contributing to the accident. Hensel v. Beckward, 273 Md. 426, 330 A. 2d 196 (1974); Creaser v. Owens, supra; Thompson v. Terry, 245 Md. 480, 226 A. 2d 540 (1967); Dunnill v. Bloomberg, 228 Md. 230, 179 A. 2d 371 (1962); Belle Isle Cab Co. v. Pruitt, 187 Md. 174, 49 A. 2d 537 (1946). As our predecessors stated in Sun Cab Co. v. Faulkner, 163 Md. 477, 163 A. 194 (1932), a case involving, as here, a suit by a passenger in the favored vehicle against the favored driver:
“If negligence is found in the rate of speed at which the ... [favored vehicle] was being driven, that fact alone does not, of course, answer the question of liability. The negligence must have been the cause of the collision....” 163 Md. at 479.
In Motor Tours v. Becker, 165 Md. 32, 166 A. 434 (1933), the only evidence of negligence on the part of the favored driver who was involved in an accident with an unfavored vehicle which failed to yield the right-of-way was excessive speed. In a suit against the favored driver by his passenger, *499the Court said that whether the case was one properly for the jury depended upon whether the speed of the favored vehicle could reasonably be regarded as a proximate cause of the accident. It was there concluded that because there was no evidence that the driver of the favored vehicle could have avoided the collision after the danger of its occurrence became apparent, his excessive speed was not a proximate cause of the accident and his passenger could not recover from him.
Sun Cab Co. v. Cusick, 209 Md. 354, 121 A. 2d 188 (1956), also involved a suit by a passenger in a favored vehicle against the favored driver who, at the time he collided with the unfavored vehicle, was exceeding the speed limit. We held that even though the favored driver was exceeding the speed limit, it was the negligence of the unfavored driver in failing to yield the right-of-way, and not the excessive speed of the favored driver, that was the proximate cause of the accident, there being no evidence that the accident could have been avoided had the favored driver been proceeding within the speed limit. To like effect, see Redmiles v. Muller, 29 Md. App. 304, 348 A. 2d 291 (1975).
Evidence legally sufficient to find the favored driver’s negligence to be a proximate cause of the accident must be positive evidence of inattention or lack of due care not based on “nice calculations of speed, time or distance.” Brown v. Ellis, 236 Md. 487, 495, 204 A. 2d 526 (1964); Harper v. Higgs, 225 Md. 24 at 36, 169 A. 2d 661 (1961). The majority cites several “rare” cases where liability was imposed on the favored driver. In each of those cases, however, the favored driver’s negligence was a jury issue because of evidence introduced from which the jury could properly find that the favored driver was inattentive to his driving, and that but for his inattention, the accident could have been avoided. For example, Sun Cab Co. v. Hall, 199 Md. 461, 86 A. 2d 914 (1952), involved a suit by a passenger in the favored vehicle against the favored driver who collided with a vehicle which entered the boulevard from an unfavored road. There, the alleged negligence of the favored driver was considered to be a jury question in view of testimony of inatten*500tion on his part, coupled with an apparent opportunity to avoid the accident had he been looking. The Court there said:
“. .. the driver on a boulevard is not obliged to anticipate that someone will negligently come into his path, but he is not excused from liability to his passengers if someone does come in, and he fails to avoid a collision because he did not look in time to see what was inevitable.... [T]he jury ... [could have found from the evidence] that had the ... [favored driver] been looking, he could have seen the other car entering the intersection, and he could have seen this when he was far enough away to have avoided the accident....” 199 Md. at 467.
Similarly, in Harper v. Higgs, supra, the favored driver was found to be negligent in a suit filed against her by the passenger in the unfavored vehicle; in that case there vas evidence that the favored driver was so busy talking to her passengers, and so inattentive to her driving, that she failed to observe the unfavored driver’s entrance onto the boulevard in time to avoid the accident. In Green v. Zile, 225 Md. 339, 170 A. 2d 753 (1961), the negligence of the favored driver was held to be a jury issue because of evidence showing that he could have avoided the accident if attentive; there the favored driver failed to see a large and plainly visible tractor-trailer which had been obstructing the intersection for some time prior to impact with the favored vehicle, giving rise to a permissible inference that the favored driver was negligent in not keeping a proper lookout.
The Court alludes to Pinchbeck v. Baltimore Tank Lines, Inc., 258 Md. 211, 265 A. 2d 238 (1970), as a case in which the favored driver’s negligence in speeding at 80 miles per hour was found to constitute a proximate cause of an accident with an unfavored driver. That case, however, turned on the favored driver’s inattention to his driving, and not on the excessive speed of his vehicle. The favored driver admitted he had seen the unfavored truck, which was 55 feet long and had five lights across the top of the cab, two tail lights, two *501combination stop and turn lights, a light on each corner, two reflectors on the bumper and three lights across the top, in the intersection before the collision. There was also evidence that the favored driver failed to use a safe escape route provided by the median strip.
The contrast between Pinchbeck and the other so-called “rare” cases, and the present case is clear. While there was evidence that Kopitzki was speeding and had one alcoholic drink shortly prior to the accident, there was no evidence that he was inattentive to his driving or failed to maintain a proper lookout. There was no evidence to indicate that Kopitzki could have avoided the collision. In fact, the eyewitness to the accident, John Doyle, testified that once Kitchen pulled onto the highway “an accident was inevitable” because “they couldn’t get out of each other’s way.” The evidence that Kopitzki was only 200 feet away from the intersection with the unfavored road when the unfavored driver entered the highway leads me to conclude that Kitchen pulled into Kopitzki’s path immediately prior to the collision and that Kopitzki could not have swerved in time to avoid the accident. Even if Kopitzki saw Kitchen on the access road before Kitchen moved onto the highway, he was not obliged to anticipate that the unfavored vehicle would negligently come into his path. Sun Cab Co. v. Hall, supra. In the circumstances of this case, the only way a jury could have found that Kopitzki’s excessive speed constituted a concurring proximate cause of the accident was to indulge in the type of “nice calculations of time, speed and distance” forbidden by Harper v. Higgs, supra, and Brown v. Ellis, supra. That the jury was permitted to do so constituted error.
That Kopitzki had had one beer just prior to the accident, would not, in itself, make his conduct a proximate cause of the accident where, as here, no nexus between the drinking and the accident was ever remotely shown and the evidence affirmatively established that Kopitzki could not have avoided the accident after Kitchen violated his statutory duty to yield the right-of-way. See Quinn Freight Lines v. Woods, 266 Md. 381, 389, 292 A. 2d 669 (1972); Johnson v. *502Dortch, 27 Md. App. 605, 342 A. 2d 326 (1975); Tippett v. Quade, 19 Md. App. 49, 309 A. 2d 481 (1973). I, therefore, see no distinction between this case and our prior decisions where speeding or drinking or both were held to be insufficient, without positive evidence of inattention, to establish favored driver liability. I would reverse the judgment entered against Kopitzki.