CourtListener is a project of Free Law Projecta Litoh c 3 non-profit. We rely on donations for our financial security. Donate Now. Sign In Register. Filed: March 10th, Precedential Status: Precedential.

Citations: A. Docket Compsny [No. Panel: Wilson K. Barnes Sr. FinanHall HammondWilliam R. HorneyCharles C. Judges: Hammond, C. James M. This is a motor tort action in which the plaintiff-appellant, Francis Kline, claimed that he sustained personal injuries rAt property damage when the automobile which he owned and was operating at the time was struck from behind by a panel truck owned by the defendant, The Art Litho Company, Inc. Kane, also a defendant.

The jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendants. The weather was clear and dry, and it was daylight. Immediately prior to the accident, both vehicles were traveling south on Hanover Street in the center lane of the three southbound lanes. There was traffic moving in all three southbound lanes at Commpany time of the accident. Kline testified at the trial that as he proceeded south on Hanover Street, a traffic light two blocks south of West Street changed to red.

When traffic in Conpany of him came to a stop, Kline stopped south of West Street below the building line. The closest car in front of Art Litho Company was about four or five feet away. After he had been standing for some period of time, he heard the squealing of brakes. He looked in the rear view mirror and saw the panel truck in the middle of the intersection, coming through it at a fast rate of speed.

Kline then looked straight ahead, and his car was struck in the rear by the panel truck. The impact of iLtho accident drove Kline's automobile four or five feet forward even though Kline had his brakes on. Kane testified that immediately prior to the accident he was traveling south on Hanover Street in the center lane. At some point north of West Street, traffic picked up speed and was moving at about twenty miles per hour.

A car traveling in the right southbound lane Stafford And Company from that lane into the center lane at a distance of about twenty to twenty-five feet in front of the plaintiff's car.

Instead of continuing at the speed of the traffic in front of him or decelerating slowly to accommodate the car which had entered his lane, Kline, suddenly and without warning Lithi apparent reason, came to a complete stop. Kane immediately applied his brakes, but could not come to a complete stop before bumping the rear of the plaintiff's car. Kane did not anticipate the complete and sudden stop of the plaintiff, because it was apparent to him that the plaintiff had sufficient room to continue moving with the traffic.

Kane was about even with the south curb of Hanover Street when Kline made his sudden and unexpected stop. He stated that there was no damage to the plaintiff's car as a result of the accident, except for a little dent in the bumper. Since the officer was on vacation at the time of the trial, counsel for both parties stipulated to his testimony. His investigation revealed that the accident occurred in the block of Hanover Street, fifteen feet south of West Street; that First Response Insurance Company condition of both operators was apparently normal; that there were no defects in either vehicle, but there was damage to the rear of Kline's automobile and to the front of the panel truck; and that there was no traffic control present.

From information obtained from both operators, the officer gave the following description as to how the accident occurred: "No.

It is obvious from the facts above that reasonable minds could differ as to the events which took place. Kline testified that he had been stopped AArt some time before Kane struck him. Kane testified that Kline was moving with the flow of traffic when he suddenly and without signaling stopped, having had no apparent reason for doing so. Plaintiff has attempted in his brief to discredit the testimony of Kane by alleging that it was so contradictory Neon Pharmaceutical Company inconsistent as Compang render it of no probative force.

See Art Litho Company v. Carmichael, Md. Transit Co. A review of the record indicates that the testimony was not so contradictory as to deprive it of any Company Aytch force. Bricker v. Graceffo, Md. Commissioner, Md. Cobourn v. Morrison, Md. Butler, Md. Prinz, Md. See also Bernardi v. Roedel, Md. Lorenz, Md. Since we have concluded that the trial court was correct in submitting the questions Company Business Proposal Letter primary and contributory negligence to the jury and the jury found for the defendants, it becomes unnecessary for us to consider the trial judge's ruling upon the evidence relating to the plaintiff's injuries.

Morrison, supra. Your Notes edit none. Cited By This case has not yet been cited in our system. Authorities 9 This opinion cites: Cobourn v. Morrison, A. Lorenz, A. Butler, A. Carmichael, 96 A. Please support our work with a donation. Decided March 10, Henry J. Frankel for appellant. Judgment affirmed, with costs. Newsletter Sign up to receive the Free Law Project newsletter with tips and announcements.

Values Donald Art Company Donald Art Co

What is my Donald Art Company print worth? The value of DAC art prints depends mostly on who the Artist is, rather than the publisher. Keep in mind that litho prints were mass produced in large quantities, and in most cases were intended to be sold cheap. And ……

Donald Art Company Donald Art Co

A collector's gallery of Art Prints from the Donald Art Company! Images are from the original DAC catalogs, which means they are derived from thumb-size images and are (therefore) not as sharp or as beautiful as the full size prints. Our Gallery displays most of the litho prints that Donald Art Company offered during the 1960's and 1970's!…

Contact us Ohio Art Company

The Ohio Art Company. Ohio Art stands as one of the leading metal lithographers in the world. For more than 100 years, we have translated the Metal Lithography art form into customers’ success. ... Recent Posts. 05 Dec. Ohio Art expands its metal litho service offerings with a Digital Press. Comments Off on Ohio Art expands its metal litho ...…

Art Lithocraft Company – The ALC Group – Exploring the ...

When it’s your brand, there are no small details. They all count. That’s why The ALC Group has spent more than 60 years perfecting a rare blend of technology and craftsmanship. Flawless execution that only state-of-the-art equipment and the experienced human eye can achieve. Your brand deserves that kind of attention. And you deserve a prepress partner who can ……

Art Lithocraft Co 219 W 18th St Kansas City, MO Printing ...

Art Lithocraft Company, located in Kansas City, Mo., provides lithography, flexography, film imaging, plate-making, production graphics and digital prepress services for customers throughout the world. Its projects include backlight graphics, custom graphics, outdoor signs, labels, corrugated pizza boxes and decorative packaging.Location: 219 W 18th St, Kansas City, 64108, MO…

Ohio Art Vintage & Antique Toys for sale eBay

Vintage Ohio Art Company Chinese Checkers Game & Old Marbles Metal #538 USA. $39.99 +$10.95 shipping. ... Rare 1939 Ohio Art Tin Litho 14 Piece Pinocchio Tea Set. $95.00 +$13.85 shipping. Make Offer - Rare 1939 Ohio Art Tin Litho 14 Piece Pinocchio Tea Set. VINTAGE OHIO ART TIN LITHO JACK IN ……