Malik v. Tommy's Auto Service, Inc.
24 A.3d 114
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2011Background
- Malik sues Payne and TAS for injuries from a collision with Payne's tow truck on Washington Blvd.
- Payne testified he looked both ways and saw no traffic before proceeding; Malik testified he was stationary in the center turning lane waiting to turn left.
- Photographs showed damage pattern suggesting Malik moving forward; Payne’s left bumper sustained most damage.
- Malik had delayed seeking medical care but later diagnosed with a herniated disc.
- Boulevard Rule governs liability when unfavored driver yields to favored traffic; trial court denied Malik’s Rule 2-519 motion and refused a requested vision-imperfection instruction.
- Jury found Payne negligent and Malik contributorily negligent; circuit court entered judgment for appellees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a driver can be conferred a conclusive sight-presumption instruction. | Malik urged instruction that driver is conclusively presumed to have seen what he would have seen. | Payne argued proper law is covered by reasonable-care instructions; no conclusive presumption is required. | Instruction properly declined; pattern instructions sufficed |
| Whether the circuit court erred by denying judgment on liability against Payne. | Boulevard Rule absolves Malik; Payne was negligent as a matter of law. | There was legally sufficient evidence of Payne's negligence and Malik's contributory negligence for jury resolution. | Judge denied JMOL; evidence sufficient to submit to jury; affirmed |
| Whether the jury instruction on contributory negligence was proper. | N/A or Malik challenges failure to instruct differently. | Court properly instructed negligence as failing to exercise reasonable care. | Instruction fair and proper; affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Grady v. Brown, 408 Md. 182 (Md. 2009) (Boulevard Rule duty; set forth burden shifting)
- Barrett v. Nwaba, 165 Md. App. 281 (Md. App. 2005) (unfavored driver confronts claims of favored driver's negligence)
- Beahm v. Shortall, 279 Md. 321 (Md. 1977) (meager evidence can go to jury; not required to be a scintilla)
- Brendel v. Ellis, 129 Md. App. 309 (Md. App. 1999) (view obstruction arguments cannot automatically absolve unfavored driver)
- Creaser v. Owens, 267 Md. 238 (Md. 1972) (topography limitations on unfavored driver's view; heavy responsibility on unfavored driver)
- Belle Isle Cab Co. v. Pruitt, 187 Md. 174 (Md. 1946) (warning against relying on precise speed/time calculations to find contributory negligence)
- Dennard v. Green, 335 Md. 305 (Md. 1994) (bar for jury consideration of favored driver negligence; evidence review standard)
- Zografos v. Mayor & City Council, 165 Md. App. 80 (Md. App. 2005) (jury instruction standards and standard of review)
- Landon v. Zorn, 389 Md. 206 (Md. 2005) (harmless error standard for jury instructions)
- Fowler v. Smith, 240 Md. 240 (Md. 1965) (pattern negligence standard guidance)