# Montgomery Cablevision Ltd. Partnership v. Beynon

> Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · July 3, 1997 · 116 Md. App. 363

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9644305

## Case

- **Full name:** MONTGOMERY CABLEVISION LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, Et Al. v. Julia D. BEYNON, Et Al.
- **Court:** Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
- **Decided:** July 3, 1997
- **Citations:** 116 Md. App. 363; 696 A.2d 491
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Murphy
- **Judges:** Murphy, Eyler, Bloom
- **Cited by:** 8 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Red flag:** Reversed on other grounds by Beynon v. Montgomery Cablevision Ltd. Partnership, 351 Md. 460 (1998).
- Negative treatments: 1
- Distinguished by: 0
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9644305

## Opinion text

MURPHY, Chief Justice,
dissenting.
In this case, in my view, there is no question but that there had to have been absolute overwhelming mental anguish on the part of [the tort victim] between the moment that he saw the danger and the time that there actually was a crash.
With the above explanation, the able, experienced trial judge rejected appellant’s contention that pre-impact fright damages are not recoverable under the facts of this case. The jury obviously agreed with that analysis. I also agree with *404 the trial judge, and therefore dissent from the majority’s decision to reduce the judgment by the amount awarded for the decedent’s pre-impact fright.
A survivor’s action simply does not present the danger of a spurious claim. Proof that the victim’s injuries were fatal more than satisfies the “objective manifestation” requirement for awards based on the victim’s fright. Moreover, pre-impact fright damages are not recoverable in such cases unless there is circumstantial evidence that the decedent made a conscious effort to avoid the collision. In this case, the circumstantial evidence proved beyond any doubt that the decedent made such an effort.
Under the circumstances of this tragic case, the pre-impact fright claim was properly submitted to the jury, and the jury’s verdict should not be disturbed. The pre-impact fright award is consistent with both Court of Appeals’ precedent and the survivor’s action provided for by a General Assembly that recognized the unfairness in allowing tortfeasors to benefit because the injuries they caused were fatal rather than serious.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9644305. Public record. Not legal advice.