Willis v. Ford
66 A.3d 112
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2013Background
- Auto accident between Ms. Willis (appellant) and Mr. Ford (appellee); Ms. Ford was a rear-seat passenger in Ford’s vehicle.
- Plaintiffs filed a negligence action on Sept. 9, 2010 in Prince George’s County Circuit Court; jury returned verdict for Fords after two-day trial.
- JNOV and new-trial motions filed by Willis; circuit court denied both; Willis appeals.
- Verdict awarded medicals and noneconomic damages to Mr. Ford and Ms. Ford; Willis argued contributory negligence and trial error.
- Appellate standard: JNOV requires legally sufficient evidence; new trial for weight of the evidence/against it; emergency instruction issue analyzed for preservation and instructional adequacy.
- Court affirms circuit court’s denial of JNOV and new trial and also affirms denial of an Acts in Emergencies instruction based on record and evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Contributory negligence as matter of law | Willis argues Fords were contributorily negligent as a matter of law. | Fords presented substantial evidence and multiple inferences supporting contributory negligence. | No; jury reasonably concluded no sole inference; JNOV/new trial denied. |
| Entitlement to an Acts in Emergencies instruction | Willis contends emergency instruction was warranted. | Record preservation unclear; even if preserved, no emergency instruction required by evidence. | No; instruction not warranted or preserved; circuit court’s ruling affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Martin v. Sweeney, 207 Md. 543 (1955) (contributory negligence driven by leaving a place of safety to danger)
- Haney v. Gregory, 177 Md.App. 504 (2007) (emergency instruction appropriate only if evidence shows action taken in response to emergency)
- Rustin v. Smith, 104 Md.App. 676 (1995) (emergency instruction requires actual act or choice in response to emergency)
- Lindenberg v. Needles, 208 Md. 8 (1953) (contributory negligence reviewed for single permissible conclusion)
- Moodie v. Santoni, 292 Md. 582 (1982) (contributory negligence generally a question for the jury)
- Scapa Dryer Fabrics, Inc. v. Saville, 418 Md. 496 (2011) (standard for reviewing denial of motions for JNOV)