Summary
In Wickman v. Bohle, 173 Md. 694, 196 A. 326 (unreported), 173 Md. 694, 196 A. 326 (reported in full) (1938), a negligence action arising out of a collision between Cyril Bohle, a child on a bicycle, and an automobile operated by Clifford Wickman, Wickman moved for a directed verdict based solely on the ground that the record lacked sufficient evidence to prove negligence on his part, which the Circuit Court for Howard County denied.
Summary of this case from In re Kaleb KOpinion
[No. 81, October Term, 1937.]
Decided January 13th, 1938.
Automobile Striking Bicycle — Turning Into Lane — Negligence of Driver — Evidence — Instruction — Last Clear Chance.
In an action for injuries to a boy on a bicycle, struck by defendant's automobile coming from the rear, as the boy was turning into a narrow lane on his right, held that the evidence as to the boy's slowing down of his bicycle as he turned towards the left before turning to the right into the lane, together with the visibility of the lane as a possible turning place, justified a finding by the jury that defendant was negligent in failing to foresee the boy's possible purpose to turn to the right.
The refusal of a prayer to direct a verdict for defendant could not be reviewed on the ground that it should have been granted because of plaintiff's contributory negligence, if the prayer itself was based solely on alleged lack of negligence on defendant's part, since, under Code, art. 5, sec. 10, only the ruling actually asked and made can be reviewed.
In an action on account of injuries to a boy on a bicycle, struck by defendant's automobile from the rear as the boy was turning into a narrow lane on the right, a prayer by defendant which assumed that the sole issue was defendant's negligence in attempting to pass the boy on the right was properly refused when negligence in attempting to pass at all might be a ground of liability.
In such case an instruction on the doctrine of last clear chance was proper, since the evidence tended to prove that the bicyclist was not heeding defendant's automobile behind him, and that that fact was perfectly obvious to any one watching him.
Under Code (Supp. 1935) art. 35, sec. 54A, in an action for personal injuries, a hospital record, which stated the case as that of "a fractured right clavicle two weeks prior to his admission," was admissible.
In an action on account of a fractured clavicle, it was proper to refuse to strike out a surgeon's testimony that an operation two weeks after the accident was necessary by reason of the failure of the bones to knit after the original setting, as against a contention that such operation was necessitated by improper first treatment and not by the accident, the surgeon also testifying that any treatment by setting of bones might not be successful despite proper efforts and so the fracture might in the end necessitate an operation.
Such testimony by the surgeon being based on his direct examination of plaintiff's injured condition, and accompanied by an explanation of the processes sometimes making an operation necessary, it could not be claimed that it was inadmissible as being based on mere possibilities.
In an action for personal injuries, it was proper to permit plaintiff to exhibit a scar to the jury, where this evidence was admitted subject to the introduction of proof of its connection with the accident, such proof being subsequently given.
Decided January 13th, 1938.
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Howard County (FORSYTHE, J.).
Action by Cyril Bohle, infant, by his father and next friend, Frank Bohle, against Clifford L. Wickman, for personal injuries. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
The cause was argued before BOND, C.J., URNER, OFFUTT, PARKE, SLOAN, MITCHELL, SHEHAN, and JOHNSON, JJ.
Roscoe C. Rowe, with whom was C. Ferdinand Sybert on the brief, for the appellant.
J. Gilbert Prendergast and Roszel C. Thomsen, with whom were James Clark and Walter L. Clark, on the brief, for the appellee.
Unreported cases.