Baltimore Belt R. Co. v. Battler

Decision Date09 January 1906
Citation62 A. 1125,102 Md. 595
PartiesBALTIMORE BELT R. CO. et al. v. BATTLER.
CourtMaryland Court of Appeals

Appeal from Court of Common Pleas;

George M. Sharp, Judge.

Action by George W. Sattler against the Baltimore Belt Railroad Company and another. Judgment for plaintiff and defendants appeal. Reversed.

Argued before McSHERRY, C. J., and BRISCOE, BOYD, PAGE, SCHMUCKEK, JONES, and BURKE, JJ.

Duncan K. Brent and W. Irvine Cross, for appellants. Oscar Wolff and Alfred S. Niles, for appellee.

BURKE, J. 1. This is an action of trespass on the case, brought by George William Sattler against the Baltimore Belt Railroad Company and the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company to recover damages for certain alleged acts of the defendants. The plaintiff is the owner of two unimproved lots of ground in the city of Baltimore on the east side of Charles street, one of which has a frontage of 50 feet, and the other of 100 feet, on said street, and each has a depth of about 180 feet to an alley. The Baltimore Belt Railroad Company runs near to the north of said last-mentioned lot, and about 150 feet north of the first-mentioned lot. The Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company runs engines and trains of cars over the tracks of the Baltimore Belt Railroad Company under an arrangement between it and the latter company. The alleged tort, which constitutes the ground of the action, is stated in the narr. in the following words: "That from the engines which are run over the said rail road by the defendants aforesaid, and have been for a long time past, are discharged large quantities of smoke and offensive unwholesome vapors upon said plaintiff's land, and from the engines and cars so run by the defendants aforesaid there is caused to come upon the plaintiff's said land a large amount of noise and vibration." And the injury which is alleged to have resulted from said unlawful acts is stated as follows: "That by reason of said discharge of smoke and offensive and unwholesome vapors upon plaintiff's said land, and by reason of the causing of said noise and vibration to come as aforesaid upon the plaintiff's said land, the plaintiff's said land is rendered far less desirable for dwelling or building purposes than it otherwise would be, the plaintiff is deprived of the profits and advantages that would reasonably inure to him from the development and improvement of his said property, and the value thereof is seriously impaired." In the case of the Baltimore Belt Railroad Company v. Sattler, 100 Md. 306, 59 Atl. 654, it was decided that the plaintiff would have a right to recover under the declaration in this case, provided the allegations thereof were supported by the proof. That case was reversed for errors found to have been committed by the court in the admission of certain testimony, and a new trial was awarded. It was retried in the court of common pleas, and resulted in a judgment for the plaintiff against the defendants, from which judgment they have prosecuted this appeal. The evidence shows that between the two lots mentioned in the declaration there is a lot improved by a dwelling house in which the plaintiff resides, but that the plaintiff does not own this lot, and that the adjacent lots on the north and south are used in connection therewith as a garden and lawn. During the trial the defendants reserved 21 exceptions upon questions of evidence, and two to the refusal of the court to strike out certain testimony. At the conclusion of the case the plaintiff offered one prayer, which was granted, and the defendants offered three prayers, and made seven motions to strike out testimony. The court refused the defendants' prayers, and also their third, fourth, and fifth motions. To the granting of the plaintiff's prayer, and the refusal of their prayers, and their third, fourth, and fifth motions, the defendants excepted, and this constitutes the twenty-fourth exception.

2. While the exceptions are numerous, they present little difficulty, and may be disposed of by application thereto of well-recognised legal principles. In order to recover, it was incumbent upon the plaintiff to prove, first, his ownership or possession of the land; secondly, the injurious acts alleged to have been done by the defendants, or one of them; and, thirdly, the damages directly caused to his interest in the lots by the wrongs complained of. The plaintiff's title to the lots was admitted by the defendants. It was also admitted that the Baltimore Belt Railroad Company is operated by the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company, and has been so operated since August 4, 1895; that the tracks of the Baltimore Belt Railroad Company run immediately north of the plaintiff's properly. and are used by the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company in running its trains between Baltimore and Philadelphia, and have been so used since August 4, 1895. The plaintiff then offered evidence by a number of witnesses tending to prove the wrongful acts on the part of the defendants alleged in the narr., and the injurious effects of said acts upon his property. Upon this branch of the case it becomes important, in disposing of some of the questions raised, to refer to the testimony of the plaintiff. As to the condition of the property before the injury complained of, he testified that the lots mentioned in the declaration were used as pleasure grounds or garden, and contained shade trees, flowers, and shrubs, and were generally used as a gentleman's garden; that he made all the improvements upon the property; that he graded it; that he used the lots as a pleasure ground, as a place to get a little fresh air, and also for having some fruit there; that he had some of the finest trees there, flowers, and shrubs, and imported trees from Germany and other places; that there are two tracks in the open cut of the Belt Railroad immediately north of his property, over which practically all of the trains between Baltimore and Philadelphia and New York run; that there are more than 120 trains that pass that point daily; and that they are passing continually day and night.

As to the effects upon sald lots due to the running of the trains, he testified that there was always a quantity of thick smoke with gas and cinders thrown over his place; that the smoke ruined all of his fruit, and was so bad that he could not eat the fruit without washing it; that this takes the pleasure away; that the cinders are falling all the time, burning cinders; that the brush on the road was set on fire, and in that way his fence was set on fire several times; that his stable was burned—that is, the fire commenced in the grass, or old hay, and the cinders and nothing else did it; that the gas smells very strongly at times, and occasionally there is none, according to how the wind blows; that the noise is so loud that you can scarcely understand each other when you are talking; that the vibration is frequently felt about two minutes before the train passes his place; that the two tunnels at the end of the open cut carry the sound farther, and that the smoke and gas come out of the tunnels; that the vibration and noise are worse in the house than out doors; that the windows clatter and shake, and the shutters make a noise; that often it seems like some one was breaking into the house; that the gas is very disagreeable. It is also important to note that all the testimony in support of the plaintiff's case was limited to injury and damage to the time between August 4, 1895, when the operation of the road began, and the 8th day of October, 1902, when the suit was brought, and by the prayer granted at the instance of the plaintiff the jury were instructed to limit their finding as to damages to the last-named date. The injury was therefore treated as a temporary, and not a permanent, one, and the case was tried on behalf of the plaintiff upon this conception of the nature of the injury.

3. The main points of controversy turn upon the question of the proof and the measure of damages. Many of the numerous exceptions rest upon identical grounds of objection. There are certain principles applicable to this branch of the case which must be conceded: First, there being no element in the case which would authorize the jury to visit punishment upon the defendant, the damages must be limited to compensation for...

To continue reading

Request your trial
21 cases
  • State Roads Commission of State Highway Administration v. Parker
    • United States
    • Maryland Court of Appeals
    • 29 Agosto 1975
    ... ... Burch, Atty. Gen., Nolan H. Rogers, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Baltimore", and Richard T. Brice, IV, Sp. Atty., Annapolis, on the brief), for appellant ...        \xC2" ... In Baltimore Belt R. R. Co. v. Sattler, 102 Md. 595, 602, 62 A. 1125, 1127; 64 A. 507, this Court said, '(a)n expert ... ...
  • Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Albright
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • 26 Febrero 2013
    ... ... Page 3 Circuit Court for Baltimore County Case # 03-C-07-003809 Bell, C.J. Harrell Battaglia Greene Barbera McDonald Eldridge, John C ... damages should be "precisely commensurate with the injury; nothing more, nor less." Baltimore Belt R.R. Co. v. Sattler, 102 Md. 595, 601, 62 A. 1125, 1127 (1906). Thus, "the general principle upon ... ...
  • Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Albright
    • United States
    • Maryland Court of Appeals
    • 26 Febrero 2013
    ... ... Scheeler (John E. Griffith, Jr. and Jeffrey D. Herschman of DLA Piper LLP (US), Baltimore, MD), on brief, for Appellant. Ava E. LiasBooker (McGuire Woods LLP, Baltimore, MD; James F ... 400]commensurate with the injury; nothing more, nor less. Baltimore Belt R.R. Co. v. Sattler, 102 Md. 595, 601, 62 A. 1125, 1127 (1906). Thus, the general principle upon ... ...
  • Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Ford
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • 9 Febrero 2012
    ... ... Feb. 9, 2012 ... [40 A.3d 519] Charles P. Scheeler, Baltimore, MD (John E. Griffith, Jr., Jeffrey D. Herschman, DLA Piper LLP (US), Baltimore, MD, James F ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT