From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Forbstein v. General Tire Company

Court of Appeals of Maryland
Nov 23, 1934
175 A. 445 (Md. 1934)

Summary

In Forbstein v. General Tire Co., 167 Md. 686 (unreported), 175 A. 445, the cause of action was in tort, but it was held that the Evidence Act did not apply because the administrator was not a party.

Summary of this case from Shaneybrook v. Blizzard

Opinion

[No. 32, October Term, 1934.]

Decided November 23rd, 1934.

Motor Vehicles — Injuries in Collision — Excessive Speed — Negligence of Owner's Husband — Surprise in Testimony

That a motorcycle was travelling at a negligent rate of speed did not make the owner thereof liable for injuries, to one riding in the side car, received when it was struck from the side by an automobile, this not being the result of the rate of speed.

The owner of an automobile was not liable for the negligence of her husband in driving it, if he was not at the time using it for any business of hers.

In an action against the owner of an automobile on account of injuries received in a collision therewith while it was being driven by her husband, plaintiff was not entitled to a postponement on the ground that he was taken by surprise by defendant's testimony that her husband was not at the time using the car on her business, since the husband's agency for defendant was an essential part of plaintiff's case.

In an action against the owner of an automobile, based on the negligence of her husband, since deceased, in driving it, she was not incompetent as a witness by reason of Code, art. 35, sec. 3, this applying in terms only to actions or proceedings by or against executors, administrators, heirs, devisees, legatees and distributees.

Decided November 23rd, 1934.

Appeal from the Baltimore City Court (DENNIS, C.J.).

Action by Leon L. Forbstein against the General Tire Company and Margaret M. Lilly. From a judgment for defendants, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

The cause was argued before BOND, C.J., URNER, ADKINS, OFFUTT, PARKE, and SLOAN, JJ.

Harry O. Levin, for the appellant.

Walter V. Harrison, with whom was Robert France on the brief, for the General Tire Company, appellee.

Abram C. Joseph, with whom was Foster H. Fanseen on the brief, for Margaret M. Lilly, appellee.


Unreported cases.


Summaries of

Forbstein v. General Tire Company

Court of Appeals of Maryland
Nov 23, 1934
175 A. 445 (Md. 1934)

In Forbstein v. General Tire Co., 167 Md. 686 (unreported), 175 A. 445, the cause of action was in tort, but it was held that the Evidence Act did not apply because the administrator was not a party.

Summary of this case from Shaneybrook v. Blizzard
Case details for

Forbstein v. General Tire Company

Case Details

Full title:LEON FORBSTEIN v . GENERAL TIRE COMPANY ET AL

Court:Court of Appeals of Maryland

Date published: Nov 23, 1934

Citations

175 A. 445 (Md. 1934)
175 A. 445

Citing Cases

Shaneybrook v. Blizzard

Cf. Smith v. Humphreys, 104 Md. 285, 289, Horner v. Frazier, 65 Md. 1, 10, Russell v. Carman, 114 Md. 25, 35,…

Knight v. Handley Motor Company

In Maryland "the operator of a motor vehicle is prima facie the agent and servant of its owner, but the…