Baltimore, C. & A. Ry. Co. v. Twilley
| Decision Date | 26 June 1907 |
| Citation | 67 A. 265,106 Md. 445 |
| Parties | BALTIMORE, C. & A. RY. CO. v. TWILLEY. |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Court of Common Pleas; Henry D. Harlan, Judge.
Action by Thomas H. Twilley against the Baltimore, Chesapeake & Atlantic Railway Company. From a judgment for plaintiff defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Argued before BRISCOE, BOYD, PEARCE, SCHMUCKER, BURKE, and ROGERS JJ.
Edward Duffy, for appellant.
German H. H. Emory, for appellee.
This is an action for assault, false arrest, and imprisonment brought by Thomas H. Twilley against the Baltimore Chesapeake & Atlantic Railway Company. The defendant is a corporation and a common carrier of passengers between the towns of Hurlock and Ocean City, in the state of Maryland. On the afternoon of July 21, 1905, the plaintiff was a passenger on the cars of the defendant company on his way from Ocean City to his home in Cambridge, Dorchester county. The train stopped at Salisbury, in Wicomico county. The plaintiff alighted from the train, and while upon the premises of the defendant, and whilst in the act of boarding the train to continue his journey to his home, was arrested by William W White, a special officer, who delivered him to Josiah C. Kelly, a constable of Wicomico county, and was imprisoned in the jail of that county until the morning of the 22d of July, 1905, when he was released. The trial resulted in a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff, and the defendant has appealed.
The declaration contains three counts. The first charges that the defendant, on or about the 21st day of July, 1905, at or near the town of Salisbury, in Wicomico county, state of Maryland, by its agents, officers, and employés, while acting in the scope of their employment, recklessly, wantonly, and negligently assaulted and beat the plaintiff, and arrested the plaintiff, who was then and there a passenger on the cars of the said defendant corporation, and gave him into the custody of a constable, and caused him to be imprisoned in the county jail of Wicomico county. The second count alleges that at the time and place stated in the first count, and while the plaintiff was a passenger on the defendant's cars, he was wrongfully and negligently ejected from said cars by the agents, officers, and employés of the defendant. The third count avers that the defendant, while the plaintiff was a passenger on its cars, did knowingly, wrongfully, and negligently permit the plaintiff to be willfully and wrongfully ejected therefrom.
It was not denied, and, indeed, could not well be, that the plaintiff was a passenger of the defendant corporation at the time of the assault and arrest set forth in the declaration. The relation of passenger and carrier being shown to have existed at that time, the rules of law by which the responsibility of the defendant for the acts complained of is to be determined have been definitely and clearly stated in a number of decisions in this court, among which are the cases of Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company v. Cain, 81 Md 87, 31 A. 801, 28 L. R. A. 688, and Tolchester Company v. Scharnagle, 105 Md. 199, 65 A. 916. If there be found in the record evidence legally sufficient to show that William W. White assaulted and arrested the plaintiff, and that he was at that time an employé of the defendant, and was acting within the scope of his duty as such employé, the court committed no error in submitting the case to the jury under the instructions granted. Upon that assumption, those instructions clearly and correctly submitted the whole case fairly to the jury. There was no objection to the legal propositions asserted in the plaintiff's prayers, but it was contended that his first and second prayers should not have been granted for the reasons stated in the special exceptions filed thereto by the defendant, viz.: That there was no evidence that White was at the time of the arrest an employé of the defendant company, and that he was acting as an employé of the defendant company within the scope of his authority. Before considering the evidence bearing upon these questions, which are the most important ones presented on the record, we will examine briefly some of the other more material portions of the testimony. The plaintiff testified that at the time of the injuries complained of he resided at Cambridge, Md.; that on July 21, 1905, he purchased a ticket from Cambridge to Ocean City and return, good for one day; that he left Ocean City on his return home about 5 o'clock in the afternoon of that day; that his wife was with him, and he had remained with her the greater part of the day; that on his return trip there was a man on the train who was acting in a disorderly manner; that he called the attention of Mr. White, the police officer on the train, to the man's misbehavior; that White, at the request of a lady passenger, arrested the man, and removed him to the rear part of the car; that witness asked the officer what he was going to do with the man, whose name was Manning, and White said that there would be officers at Salisbury to meet him; that he asked White if Manning could not be taken to Cambridge, as he and the other witnesses were strangers at Salisbury; that White told him that he might see the officers at Salisbury, and see what they would say about it; that when the train arrived at Salisbury White took Manning off, and witness and several others got off; that when witness got on the platform he asked the officer if he would allow Manning to be carried to Cambridge; and that White, who was the police officer on the train, and the one who had arrested Manning, told witness it was no concern of his, and to get back on the train. He then testified that he started back, and had reached the second step of the car, when he was pulled off by White, who took him by the arm, pulled him off, and handed him over to a constable by the name of...
To continue reading
Request your trial