Volume 22 — Maryland Appellate Reports

WITNESSES — <italic>Expert Testimony — Evidence Not Required To</italic><italic>Establish A Standard Of Care With Regard To Erection Of</italic><italic>Protective Fencing At Car-Racing Facility — Expert Testimony</italic><italic>Warranted Where Subject Dealt With Must Be So Distinctively</italic><italic>Related To Some Science, Profession, Business Or Occupation As To</italic><italic>Be Beyond Knowledge Of Layman — Held That There Was Ample</italic><italic>Evidence From Which Jury Of Reasonable Persons Could Readily Have</italic><italic>Determined That Defendant Should Have Foreseen The Possibility</italic><italic>That Just Such An Accident Could Occur At Its Racing Facility —</italic><italic>Not Necessary That Defendant Should Have Had Notice Of Particular</italic><italic>Method In Which Accident Would Occur If Possibility Of An</italic><italic>Accident Was Clear To Ordinary Prudent Eye</italic>. pp. 230-232 APPEAL — <italic>Scope Of Review — Issues Not Raised Below — Maryland</italic><italic>Rule 1085 — Where There Was Not Only No Formal Objection To</italic><italic>Testimony Of Witness As An Expert Or To His Cross-Examination As</italic><italic>Such, Nor Protest Raised When Prior Inconsistent Statement Was</italic><italic>Produced For Impeachment Purposes But Record Itself Revealed No</italic><italic>Request To Trial Court For Limiting Or Explanatory Instructions</italic><italic>Related To The Issue, It</italic><page_number>Page 225</page_number><italic>Was Not Reviewable On Appeal Having Not Been Raised And Decided</italic><italic>By Trial Court Below — Maryland Rule 1085</italic>. pp. 237-238 DIRECTED VERDICTS — <italic>Evidence Held Sufficient To Permit</italic><italic>Question Of Negligence For Jury Determination But Not So</italic><italic>Conclusive To Warrant Directed Verdict And It Was Not Error For</italic><italic>Trial Court To Decline To Grant Such Motion</italic>. pp. 238-239 AUTOMOBILES — INSTRUCTIONS TO JURY — <italic>Standard Of Care Of Motor</italic><italic>Vehicle Operators — Maryland Has Never Established Standards To</italic><italic>Be Followed By Classes Of Drivers On Basis Of Their Experience</italic><italic>With Motor Vehicles And Although Question As To Whether Or Not A</italic><italic>Professional Race Driver Would Be Held To Higher Standard Of Care</italic><italic>And Duty Than Ordinary Driver Has Never Been Answered By Maryland</italic><italic>Appellate Court However Dicta Strongly Indicates That Neither</italic><italic>Inexperience Of The Novice Operator Nor Experience Of The</italic><italic>Professional Driver Affects Standard Of Care Required Of Drivers</italic><italic>Generally — Held That Trial Court's Refusal To Instruct Jury On</italic><italic>Higher Standard Of Care Was Not Erroneous</italic>. pp. 239-240 H.E.F.

<p>September Term, 1973.]</p>