Opinion
[Nos. 8, 9, October Term, 1936.]
Decided November 12th, 1936.
Contributory Negligence — Of Passenger in Automobile — Instructions.
In an action against the owner of an automobile by one who, while riding as a guest in the car, was injured in a collision at a street intersection, the question whether plaintiff was guilty of negligence as having acquiesced in the driving of the car at a dangerous speed for a distance of two blocks before coming to the point of collision held for the jury.
In an action by one who, while riding as a guest in defendant's car, was injured in a collision, the grant of an instruction that if the plaintiff neither had or exercised control over the driving, the negligence of the driver could not be imputed to him, and that if the plaintiff acted with ordinary care and caution immediately before the accident, and the accident was due to negligence on the part of the driver, the verdict should be against defendant, was not cause for reversal as not specifically referring to plaintiff's contributory negligence as a ground of defense, since this ground of defense was particularized with all due emphasis in another instruction, and the court, in answer to an inquiry from the jury as to a possible conflict between these instructions, told them that they should be considered as a whole, and that if they were so considered no conflict would be found, this attaching to the first of the instructions all the qualifications necessary.
The fact that the instruction as to the bar of recovery by plaintiff's contributory negligence restricted such negligence to lack of care immediately prior to the accident was not ground for reversal on defendant's appeal, in view of another instruction, that there would be contributory negligence in the passenger's failure to take measures for his own safety, if the car was proceeding at a dangerous rate of speed "for such a length of time as to have afforded the plaintiff an opportunity to have observed such speed and to have protested."
In an action for injuries received in a collision by plaintiff, while riding as a guest in appellant's automobile, the fact that one instruction stated that a verdict should be rendered against the other participant in the collision if his negligence was the direct and proximate cause of the accident, while another instruction stated that the verdict should be against appellant if the negligence of his driver caused or contributed to the accident, was not erroneous, as applying different grounds of responsibility to the drivers of the two cars.
Decided November 12th, 1936.
Appeals from the Baltimore City Court (ADAMS, J.).
Actions by Charles Neubert, Jr., infant, by Charles Neubert, Sr., his father and next friend, and by Charles Neubert, Sr., against Lea M. Warner and others. From judgments for plaintiffs against said Warner, he appeals. Affirmed.
The causes were argued before BOND, C.J., URNER, OFFUTT, PARKE, MITCHELL, and JOHNSON, JJ.
George Weems Williams and Jesse Slingluff, Jr., with whom were Marbury, Gosnell Williams on the brief, for the appellant.
Joseph T. Parr, with whom were Rome Rome on the brief, for the appellees.
Unreported cases.