Home/Court of Appeals of Maryland/Cornias v. Pipkin

Cornias v. Pipkin

228 A.2d 608, 246 Md. 339, 1967 Md. LEXIS 456
CourtCourt of Appeals of Maryland
DecidedApril 11, 1967
DocketNo. 229
StatusPublished

This text of 228 A.2d 608 (Cornias v. Pipkin) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Maryland primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Cornias v. Pipkin, 228 A.2d 608, 246 Md. 339, 1967 Md. LEXIS 456 (Md. 1967).

Opinion

Marbury, J.,

delivered the opinion of the Court.

James Cornias, appellant, brought a motor tort action against Zebbie Pipkin, appellee, for damages sustained when the automobile Pipkin was driving collided with the one operated by appellant. A jury found for the defendant, and appellant ap[341]*341pealed from the judgment on the verdict because of the allegedly inconsistent application of the law by the trial judge in his instructions concerning the effect of a “Left Turn Lane” sign painted on the left of two northbound lanes of a dual road on which both parties were traveling when their automobiles collided.

The intersection in which the accident occurred is an extremely intricate one and reference to the attached plat, which was in evidence, is worth a thousand words. The parties were traveling north on The Alameda in Baltimore City. Both automobiles were stopped at a traffic light which controlled that portion of the intersection. Appellant was in the left lane of The Alameda intending to proceed north east in the left lane of Loch Raven Boulevard (Loch Raven), and appellee was in the right lane, intending to proceed north west on The Alameda. When the light turned green, both automobiles started forward; and because the paths they traveled crossed, there was a collision. A “Left Turn Lane” sign was painted on the left of the two northbound lanes of The Alameda, south of The Alameda’s intersection with Loch Raven. A person in the left lane could not have made a sharp left turn because Upshire Road was one way east.

The cases of appellant and his minor son, who was injured in the accident while a passenger in his father’s automobile, were tried together. The trial court denied appellant’s motions for directed verdict at the close of all the evidence. The jury returned a verdict for appellant’s son against appellee, but returned a verdict against appellant. There was no appeal from the judgment for the son. Those portions of the trial court’s instructions which have been challenged are as follows:

[342]*342

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Eastern Contractors, Inc. v. State
169 A.2d 430 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1961)
Fowler v. Smith
213 A.2d 549 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1965)
Baltimore Transit Co. v. Sun Cab Co.
124 A.2d 567 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1956)
Maggio v. State, Use of Houser
177 A.2d 837 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1962)
McCann v. Crum
188 A.2d 537 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1963)
Alston v. Forsythe
172 A.2d 474 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1961)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
228 A.2d 608, 246 Md. 339, 1967 Md. LEXIS 456, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cornias-v-pipkin-md-1967.