Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. Davis
| Court | Maryland Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | ADKINS, J. |
| Citation | Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. Davis, 152 Md. 427, 137 A. 30 (Md. 1927) |
| Decision Date | 03 March 1927 |
| Docket Number | 110. |
| Parties | BALTIMORE & O. R. CO. v. DAVIS. |
Motion for Reargument Overruled April 8, 1927.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Prince George's County; J. C Mattingly and Wm. Meverell Loker, Judges.
Action by Charles W. Davis against the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Argued before BOND, C.J., and PATTISON, URNER, ADKINS, OFFUTT DIGGES, PARKE and SLOAN, JJ.
John S Stanley and William Stanley, both of Baltimore (Stanley & Stanley, of Baltimore, on the brief), for appellant.
John P. Bramhall and Le Roy Pumphrey, both of Washington, D. C. (Bramhall & McCabe, of Washington, D. C., on the brief), for appellee.
Charles W. Davis, the plaintiff, a railway postal clerk employed by the United States government, was injured on December 18, 1924, while assisting in closing a defective door of railway mail car No. 737 belonging to the defendant, the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company. He was substituting for another postal clerk named Carrico, who, while working on this car the night before, had taken cold because he could not close one of the doors of the car. Plaintiff testified that he was in sole charge of the car, and had a run out of Washington on the afternoon of December 18th; that the car was operated over the tracks of the defendant, and bore the name " that witness had never worked on this car before, as it was only used for emergency purposes for a storage car for Christmas mail; that the false wall was steel, the same material as the rest of the car; that witness had been in the car five minutes before the accident occurred, and was supervising the loading of the car; he told the porters to close the end door; he was probably three minutes going around chalking the car designating places where mail for different places was to be put; and during that time the porters had been trying to close this door. He told them to leave this door open and close the other door, and they went to the side door to close it, and this was the door at which witness was hurt. " The porter takes hold of the door. I had informed him that I had been informed that this door would not close the night before. On this account--he used special effort on this account to open the door. He grabbed it, and of course used all the strength that he had, and pulled the door, which would be really closed, pulling out from in the false wall; and he pulled it so hard that it pulled by a stick that was in the center of this double door, which is supposed to stop this door when it gets there; but the stop evidently is faulty, because the door pulls clear past the stop, and leaves a place of about probably eight inches over against the other door. * * * He takes hold of the door, and starts to pull it back. It is stuck so tight that he does not succeed in moving. I put my hand against the wall and put my other hand against the door to assist him in pushing it back * * * against the false wall. * * * Another porter is standing here. He also pushed on that door, and pushed it against this door, which shoves it against my finger. * * * The knob of this door caught my finger where it struck exactly on the face of this false wall. The knob that should have gone entirely behind the wall strikes the false wall, * * * because this false wall is caved in. * * * It was caved in when I noticed it. Of course I did not notice it when I put my hand against it, or I would not have put my hand there. It was caved in gradually. " Witness had been in the car about five minutes when the accident occurred. " We had been at this door probably half a minute; not more than that; no time for any examination."
Witness further testified that, if this false wall had been true and straight, it could not possibly have touched his finger.
On cross-examination he said the work of bringing in the mail was done by the porters who work at the Union Terminal, and witness designated the points at which it was to be piled. There were probably half a dozen colored porters. Mr. Callahan came in just about the time the accident happened. Callahan was foreman at Union Station. "I know he is the man in charge, looking after the things necessary to be done about cars, looking after fixing the water coolers, and anything that has to be done about the car, he is usually on the job; " that, if Callahan was there before, witness has no recollection of it. Witness was asked about a statement he had signed for a claim agent in which it appears that Callahan was present, and that witness "had sent for Callahan to see about door, no one asked me to assist in getting door back, that is pushing it back, but I just volunteered to assist, as I had sent for Car Foreman Callahan to look at door owing to it being defective. " There was at the foot of the statement, written by plaintiff, "I have read above and find it O. K." The witness said he made a statement to the agent, but did not read what he had written. * * * " ' '
L. A. Carrico testified that he came early on car No. 737 on December 17th, and told some railroad man in the station when he came in of the condition the doors were in; that witness told plaintiff that the car was in bad shape; that the door could not be closed. Witness did not know what was wrong, or what was the cause of it, but he could not close it. Arthur L. Van Horn, superintendent railway mail service, testified that the B. & O. Railroad Company, on December 18th supplied to the railway mail service, for the use of transporting storage mail, car No. 737 of their line. So far as the record shows, Howard W. Marshall was the only witness offered by defendant. He testified that he was assistant baggage agent of the Washington Terminal Company, with offices in Union Station at Washington; that, if a defective door of a baggage car is reported to him, or to any one in his department, it is the duty of the car department to fix the door; that Mr. Callahan is the foreman of the car department; that there is no duty on the postal clerk to fix the doors; that witness does not know how often the cars are inspected.
Plaintiff offered three prayers, the first and third of which were granted. The first instructed the jury that the care required of defendant in protecting plaintiff while engaged in his duties as postal clerk in its mail car was that due to a passenger on its trains, so far as compatible with the performance of his duties as postal clerk, and that this includes the obligation to furnish mail cars with suitable doors, and to keep them in repair and condition that they could be safely opened and shut with reasonable facility, and in this...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
-
Reed v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore
... ... 367, 109 A. 107; State to Use of Stumpf ... v. Baltimore & Belair Elec. Railway Co., 133 Md. 411, ... 105 A. 532; Griffith v. Pullman Co., 142 Md. 514, ... 121 A. 362; Chesapeake & P. Tel. Co. v. Merriken, ... 147 Md. 572, 128 A. 277, 41 A.L.R. 763; Baltimore & O ... Railroad Co. v. Davis, 152 Md. 427, 137 A. 30; ... Yockel v. Gerstadt, 154 Md. 188, 140 A. 40; ... Ausherman v. Frisch, 164 Md. 78, 163 A. 852 ... And to ... establish contributory negligence as a matter of law, the act ... relied upon must be distinct, prominent, and decisive, and ... one about ... ...
-
Dilley v. Baltimore Transit Co.
... ... Contributory ... negligence, like primary negligence, is relative and not ... absolute, and being relative it is dependent on the peculiar ... circumstances of each particular case. McNab v. United ... Railways Co., 94 Md. 719, 724, 51 A. 421; Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. Davis, 152 Md. 427, 137 A. 30. The ... plaintiff was where he had a right to be and was injured ... while doing an act which he had a right to do. But it is ... argued that he should have waited until the crowd was on the ... cars before he endeavored to get on. If this duty was imposed ... upon the ... ...