CHAPTER SEVEN ACCIDENTS CAUSED BY SIGNALING, SIGNS AND SIGNALS

• Jurisdiction: Maryland

CHAPTER SEVEN ACCIDENTS CAUSED BY SIGNALING, SIGNS AND SIGNALS

Scarlett M. Corso, Esq. Franklin & Prokopik, P.C.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

SCARLETT M. CORSO received her B.A. degree with Honors, summa cum laude from the University of Baltimore in 2007. She attended the University of Baltimore School of Law, graduating in 2010. Ms. Corso is Counsel with Franklin & Prokopik, P.C. where she practices civil litigation with an emphasis on insurance coverage, premises liability, automobile negligence, insurance subrogation, and products liability cases. She is the Chair of the CLE Committee of the Bar Association of Baltimore City, a member of theJustinian Society, and a mentor on the Baltimore Girls' Schools' Leadership Coalition as an alumnae representative for her high school alma mater, St. Paul's School for Girls.

I. INTRODUCTION

This chapter discusses the role of signaling, signs, and signals in establishing liability or lack thereof for automobile accidents in Maryland. The rights and duties of vehicle operators are addressed, with particular emphasis placed on the situations of turning vehicles and stopping vehicles. For a further discussion of the rights and duties of stopping vehicles, the discussion in Chapter 5, Rear-End Accidents should be consulted. Also discussed in this chapter is the duty of a motorist to sound a horn in proper circumstances.

The authority of state and local government to post the necessary signs regulating traffic is reviewed as are the standards with which these entities are to comply in placing signs. The amenability of governmental entities to suit for the alleged improper placement of a sign or the failure to place the same is discussed.

Lastly, this chapter sets forth the signal requirements of various special conditions, such as railroad crossings and school zones.

II. RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF VEHICLE OPERATOR

A. Signals and Signaling by Operator

1. In General

A motorist is not alone on the highway and, accordingly, a motorist is required to signal, or warn, other motorists when his or her conduct is about to change. Thus, other motorists may be reasonably informed of a motorist's intention to turn or to stop and may alter their conduct accordingly.

The rules of the road regarding signals on stopping and turning are found in Section 21-604 of the TRANSPORTATION Article.¹ These rules should, of course, be considered in conjunction with the requirements in the Code that each vehicle be equipped with stop lamps and electric turn signals.²

The rules of the road require that a person give an "appropriate signal" before turning a vehicle.³ When turning or moving right or left, a signal of intention to turn must be given continuously during at least the last 100 feet traveled by the vehicle before turning.⁴ If there is an opportunity to signal, a person may not stop or suddenly decrease the speed of a vehicle until he or she gives an "appropriate" signal to the driver of any other vehicle immediately to the rear.⁵ It should be noted that the required stop or turn signals may be hand or arm signals, in addition to lamp signals.⁶

2. Turning Vehicles

In addition to giving the proper advance signal, a driver making a right-hand turn is required to approach the intersection and make the right turn as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway.⁷ A driver making a left-hand turn is required to approach the intersection or crossover in the extreme left-hand lane lawfully available to traffic moving in the same direction.⁸ A "left-hand lane" has been interpreted to include "any well-defined improved extension of the normal width of a roadway, regardless of surface markings, which is capable of conducting traffic."⁹ It has been held, as to left turning vehicles, that on a two-way highway a motorist intending to make a left turn should approach and make the turn as near to the center line of the right half of the roadway as lawfully possible.¹⁰ On a one-way highway, the motorist should make the turn as near to the left-hand curb or edge of the roadway as practical.¹¹ The purpose of the requirement that turning motorists drive close to the edges or center of a roadway, depending upon which is applicable, is to further indicate to following motorists an intention to turn right or left and that the turning motorist should not be passed on the side toward which an indication of turning has been given.

Left turning vehicles not facing a green arrow, in addition to watching for and warning following motorists, are required to watch for motorists coming from the opposite direction and to yield the right of way to any other vehicle "that is approaching from the opposite direction and is in the intersection or so near to it as to be an immediate danger."¹²

3. Sudden Stops

The rules of the road require that if there is an opportunity to signal, a person may not stop or suddenly decrease the speed of a vehicle until giving an appropriate signal to the driver of any other vehicle immediately to the rear.¹³ An "appropriate signal" may be satisfied by the showing of a brake signal light.¹⁴ Whether due care in giving adequate warning was exercised by the slowing or stopping front vehicle is ordinarily a question for the jury.¹⁵

It has been said that exactly how much warning the leading driver needs to give of his or her intention to slow down or stop and what precaution the following driver should take to avoid a collision cannot be defined in a precise rule.¹⁶ What is known, however, is that the duties of the drivers are correlative—the driver of the front vehicle must exercise ordinary care not to slow down or stop without giving the driver of the rear vehicle adequate warning of his or her intention to do so, and the driver of the rear vehicle must exercise ordinary care to avoid colliding with the front vehicle.¹⁷ The cases below assist in defining "adequate warning" where the allegation was made that the front driver made a "sudden stop."

In Kaplan v. Solomon,¹⁸ it was held, as a matter of law, that a cab driver who gave both a hand and mechanical signal of his intention to stop in the middle of a block and who stopped slowly was free from negligence in a rear-end accident involving three cars in which his was the lead car. Although the second car in line was able to stop without striking the cab and was thereafter rear-ended by the third car, the issue of whether this second car made a sudden stop was held a question for the jury. The basis for this holding was the testimony from a passenger in the second car that she was thrown forward and then back before the car was rear-ended. This testimony was held by the court to permit the inference that the brakes were not applied gradually. Because the second car was not faced with a sudden emergency but knew that the cab in front of him was intending to stop for approximately one-half block before it did so, the court held that the jury could find that the giving of a belated signal by the second car, i.e., brakes applied suddenly, was negligence.

Todd v. Ferrell,¹⁹ involved another three-car rear-end collision. In this case, the driver of the front car was also found not negligent as a matter of law when he stopped at a red traffic light. Likewise, the driver of the second car was found not negligent. In so holding, the court placed great emphasis on the fact that the first driver had stopped for a traffic light, as opposed to stopping for some unexpected reason, stating:

What would constitute a stop without adequate warning to following vehicles might be one thing where there was no reason for drivers of following vehicles to anticipate a stop and something quite different where there was every reason to suppose that a change in traffic lights would require all vehicles moving in a heavy stream of traffic to halt. Due care requires that the drivers of vehicles in such a stream moving along a city street where traffic is controlled by light signals must be prepared to stop promptly in compliance with such signals and in such control of their vehicles as to be able to do so.²⁰

Practice Pointer

As both plaintiff and defense counsel should know, only slight evidence is required to create a jury issue in Maryland. Thus, what may appear to be a clear liability case will often go to the jury on the sudden stop defense, if it is properly presented. Neither plaintiff nor defense counsel should discount the potential effect of this defense.

4. Disabled Vehicles

Whenever a vehicle is parked or stopped on a roadway, whether attended or unattended, the vehicle must be equipped with and display warning lamps when there is insufficient light to reveal any person or object within a distance of 1,000 feet on the highway.²¹ These lamps must display a white or amber light visible from a distance of 1,000 feet to the front of the vehicle, and a red light visible from a distance of 1,000 feet to the rear of the vehicle.²² This requirement does not apply to vehicles lawfully parked in a roadway location customarily used for parking vehicles.²³ Operators of any truck, passenger bus, truck tractor, trailer, semitrailer, pole trailer, or any motor vehicle towing a mobile home must comply with additional statutory requirements governing the use of warning devices in the event their vehicle is disabled on a Maryland highway.²⁴

Maryland case law prescribes the duty of a driver of a disabled vehicle on the roadway "at night" to display a light or warning signal and the liability for failure to do so.²⁵ Generally, in a case involving an accident between a motorist driving on the roadway and the owner or operator of a disabled vehicle which is struck by said motorist, the issues of negligence of the motorist and the operator of the disabled vehicle are questions for the jury.²⁶ The law in this area was succinctly stated in the case of Marshall v. Sellers,²⁷ as follows:

While he [the motorist] could not ignore the chance that there might be on the highway a motor

...