2398 ARTICLE 56

Prayers and instructions as to right of way at intersection; evidence and province of
jury. Bode .v. Coal Co., 172 Md. 406.

In action on account of collision at intersection, held that evidence was so contra-
dictory as to require jury to decide question of fault. Right of driver on favored high-
way not absolute. Carlin v. Worthington, 172 Md. 507.

A lateral road connecting with, but not crossing, another road, is an intersecting
road within, purpose and application of this section; mischief sought to be remedied.
Buckey v. White, 137 Md. 124. And see Brown v. Patterson, 141 Md. 298. Cf. Dashiell
v. Jacoby, 142 Md. 339.

In view of this section, a defendant in a damage suit should have been careful
to see that there was no one approaching having the right of way over him; he must
also observe conditions, to his left. In making turn into an intersecting road a traveller
should comply with this section. Evidence of negligence sufficient to go to jury.
Contributory negligence. Prayers. Chiswell v. Nichols, 137 Md. 305. And see Brown v.
Patterson, 141 Md. 298.

Rules of road do not apply to cars operated on tracks of electric or steam railways.
Plaintiff guilty of contributory negligence. State v. Balto. & Belair Ry. Co., 133 Md.
415 (case arose in 1917).

Ordinance of the mayor and city council of Baltimore exempting, from this section
fire apparatus, ambulances, police vehicles and vehicles of certain physicians, held valid.
State v. Brown, 142 Md. 28.

For cases involving sec. 135 of the Code of 1904, see Fletcher v. Dixon, 107 Md. 426;
Fletcher v. Dixon, 113 Md. 101.

See notes to sec. 196.

Whether driver of defendant's truck, with- which truck in which plaintiff was riding
collided in attempting to pass from rear, was guilty of negligence, held, under the
evidence, to be question for jury. Gavin v. Tinkler, 170 Md. 461.

Ch. 436, 1924 (Sec. 210 of this Act in 1924 Code), conferring authority on Police
Commissioner of Baltimore City to make traffic rules and regulations, held unconsti-
tutional under. Art. 11A of Md. Constitution. State v. Stewart, 152 Md. 420.

Error to instruct jury that if truck in collision was to right of center of highway at
time of accident, plaintiff not entitled to recover regardless of other facts and circum-
stances; contributory negligence; negligence, proximate and remote. Kelly v. Huber
Baking Co., 145.Md. 334.

Prayers as to rules of road of vehicles approaching intersections of highways; passing
street car turning into intersecting street. Proximate cause. Hopper, McGaw & Co. v.
Kelly, 145 Md. 167.

Provision as to right of way does not apply at intersection of private and public
road; erroneous admission of photograph not ground for reversal under circumstances.
Snibbe v. Robinson, 151 Md. 660.

If street to right for safe distance is clear, plaintiff not judicially negligent in not
providing against possibility of collision with car which would have to be operated
unlawfully; burden of proof of contributory negligence. See notes to sec. 196. Taxicab
Co. v. Ottenritter, 151 Md. 531.

Guest entitled to recover against owner where owner approached intersecting road
without sounding horn and otherwise failing to exercise proper care; no contributory
negligence in case of momentary inattention of driver; question of speed and care
for jury. Pearson v. Lakin, 147 Md. 4.

Right of way at street intersection; contributory negligence for jury. Louis v.
Johnson, 146 Md. 117; Billotti v. Saval, 165 Md. 563.

Police officer guilty of contributory negligence in driving at excessive speed, which
was proximate cause of accident. See notes to sec. 194. Sudbrook v. State, 153 Md. 199.

Portion of ordinance of Baltimore City giving right of way to vehicle of physicians
without providing means of identifying such vehicles, held invalid. Kidd v. Chissell,
146 Md. 172.

Duty of driver of truck to sound horn before passing another vehicle. Greer Trans-
portation Co. v. Knight, 157 Md. 541.

The mere violation of the rules prescribed by this section will not constitute action-
able negligence, unless it is the direct and proximate cause of injury to the person
charging negligence. Friedman v. Hendler Creamery Co., 158 Md. 142.

Violation of the provisions as to turning to the right of center of highway upon
meeting others does not impose any liability unless it is a proximate cause of the
injury (accident before act of 1929, ch. 224). Cumberland, etc., Transit Co. v. Metz,
158 Md. 438.

No presumption of negligence on part of driver of truck to drive on left side of street
to avoid children playing in street; no reason to anticipate that children would coast
down paved alley into street. R. & L. Transfer Co. v. State, 160 Md. 227.

In action for injuries caused by collision at intersection of two streets, held, that
under the circumstances, the defendant was entitled to prayer stating the right of
way rule. Creamery Co. v. Friedman, 160 Md. 526.

Not necessary that declaration refer specifically to this section where charge is
made of negligence in collision of vehicles approaching each other at right angles at
street crossing. Miller v. Hall, 161 Md. 111.