Baltimore & P. R. Co. v. Swann

• Decision Date: 18 June 1895
• Citation: 81 Md. 400,32 A. 175
• Parties: BALTIMORE & P. R. CO. v. SWANN et al.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

32 A. 175

81 Md. 400

BALTIMORE & P. R. CO.

v. SWANN et al.

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

June 18, 1895.

Appeal from circuit court, Charles county.

Action by William T. Swann and wife against the Baltimore & Potomac Railroad Company for personal injuries. From a judgment for plaintiffs, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Argued before BRISCOE. BRYAN, McSHERRY, FOWLER, ROBERTS, and PAGE, JJ.

Bernard Carter, L. Allison Wilmer, and Samuel Cox, Jr., for appellant.

Adrian Posey and John H. Mitchell, for appellees.

BRYAN, J. William T. Swann and Elizabeth, his wife, brought suit against the Baltimore & Potomac Railroad Company for bodily injuries sustained by the wife. Verdict and judgment being rendered in their favor, the defendant appealed.

The female plaintiff, about midday on the 11th day of May, 1893, accompanied by her child 10 months old, traveled on the mixed train of the defendant, composed of passenger coaches and freight cars, from Pope's Creek to Cox's station, intending to return on the evening of the same day. She purchased a ticket at Cox's station for the purpose of taking the passenger train which would in ordinary course leave that station about 7 o'clock p. m. The passenger coaches were "switched off" at Cox's, and only a baggage car was run from that station on that evening to Pope's Creek. She entered that car, and was conveyed to Pope's Creek. The evidence in behalf of the plaintiffs tended to show that the accommodations were very uncomfortable and unsuitable for travelers; and that, in consequence of the absence of all conveniences, she "was shaken up, and knocked about from side to side, and slammed against the side of the car several times; and that immediately after one of these slams, when she was struck in her right side by the side of the car, she experienced a pain there, which was followed by a pain in her back." The evidence also tended to show that the woman was pregnant, and that the injuries which she received caused a miscarriage, and that she had suffered pains in her back and side almost constantly for six months. The evidence for the defendant tended to show that she was not thrown about or jostled. It was further testified that the cars could not be shifted at Pope's Creek without special danger, unless a drag rope was used, and that the drag rope used for this purpose had been broken in two on the evening of the 10th, having been before that time weakened by being run over by cars; that the conductor had telegraphed for one on the morning of the 9th, and thereafter, on reaching Baltimore, had applied at the office of the company, but that none was received until the morning of the 12th. The female plaintiff was a laboring woman, being in the habit of washing, cooking, and working in the field. She lived about a mile and a half from Pope's Creek, and at the time of these occurrences she had three children. She went to Cox's on a visit to the family of Thompson, a section hand on the railroad, who lived about half a mile from the station. There was some conflict of evidence in reference to the cause of the alleged miscarriage; the defendant's testimony supporting the theory that it was more likely to have been caused by the woman's exertions and the excitement consequent upon them before she entered the cars, and after she left them, than by any injuries received while traveling in them.

When the female plaintiff purchased a ticket at Cox's station, she acquired a contract right to be conveyed to Pope's Creek in one of the defendant's passenger coaches. If we assume that causes beyond the defendant's control prevented the use of a passenger coach on that occasion, the obligation still remained to carry the passenger safely, so far as it could be done by the exercise of the highest degree of care and skill which was consistent with the nature of the undertaking. If the baggage car was as safe a vehicle of transportation for passengers as the defendant could procure by the utmost care and diligence, it fulfilled its duty in this respect. There is no evidence to sustain such an hypothesis, and probably it is contrary to the usual experience of travelers. And yet, as the defendant...