Preview:

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 24 September Term, 2003 _________________________________________

CATHY MASON

v.

CHAUNCEY R. LYNCH __________________________________________ Bell, C.J. *Eldridge Raker Wilner Cathell Harrell Battaglia, JJ. __________________________________________ Opinion by Eldridge, J. Bell, C.J. and Raker, J., dissent ______________________________________

Filed: July 15, 2005 * Eldridge, J., now retired, participated in the hearing and conference of this case while an active member of this Court; after being recalled pursuant to the Constitution, Article IV, Section 3A, he also participated in the decision and adoption of this opinion.

The petition for a writ of certiorari in this negligence tort action presented a single question as follows:

"In a personal injury case arising from a motor vehicle accident, may a defendant place in evidence photographs showing minimal property damage and argue [in closing argument to the jury] that the photographs support an inference that the plaintiff was not injured, absent expert testimony establishing a correlation between property damage and personal injury?"

W e granted the petition and shall hold that, under the circumstances of this case, the admissibility of the photographs was within the trial judge's discretion and that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion. W e shall further hold, in light of the admission of the photographs and other evidence, that the closing argument by defendant's counsel was not improper. I. The motor vehicle accident giving rise to this tort suit occurred at the western end of the Woodrow Wilson Bridge, in the eastbound lanes, as the parties were traveling from Virginia to Maryland.1 The accident involved three motor vehicles in

The Woodrow Wilson Bridge, which is part of Interstate Route 95, spans the Potomac River in basically an east/west direction, and provides a road connection between the States of Maryland and Virginia. Most of the Woodrow Wilson Bridge is in Maryland, although small portions of the Bridge, at the western end, are in the District of Columbia and in Virginia. In the Circuit Court, the plaintiff took the position that the accident occurred in Virginia. The (continued...)

1

-2a rear-end chain collision. The plaintiff-petitioner, Cathy Mason, was operating the front automob ile which was stopped, in the left eastbound lane, because of heavy traffic. Cathy Mason's brother, Gregory James Mason, was a passenger in her car. Stopped directly behind Cathy Mason's car was an automob ile operated by Warren Goldman. The automob ile operated by the defenda nt-respond ent, Chauncey R. Lynch, had been in the adjacent lane of traffic. Lynch decided to change lanes, pulling his vehicle into the left lane behind Goldman's car. While Lynch was changing lanes and looking backward, his vehicle struck the Goldman vehicle in the rear. Even though Goldman's foot was on the brake pedal, the impact caused Goldman's car to strike the rear of Mason's car, pushing Mason's car forward. During Goldman's attempt to control his automob ile after the initial impact, Goldman's car struck Mason's car in the rear a second time. Mason filed in the Circuit Court for Prince George's County this tort action against Lynch, alleging that Mason suffered personal injuries as a result of the accident and that these injuries were proximate ly caused by Lynch's negligence. Lynch

(...continued) plaintiff filed a notice of her intention to rely on "foreign law" and requested jury instructions based on Virginia's substantive tort law. The trial judge rejected the request for jury instructions based on Virginia law and instructed the jury in accordance with Maryland law. No issue was raised in the Court of Special Appeals or in this Court concerning the trial judge's choice of law ruling. Moreover, the sole issue raised in this Court concerns the admission into evidence of the photographs and defense counsel's argument based on the photographs. This is an issue governed by the law of the forum and not by the law of the place where the accident occurred. See, e.g., Vernon v. Aubinoe, 259 Md. 159, 162, 269 A.2d 620, 621 (1970); Joffre v. Canada Dry Ginger Ale, Inc., 222 Md. 1, 6-8, 158 A.2d 631, 634-635 (1960); Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws,

Download Mason v. Lynch.pdf

Maryland Law