Baltimore Traction Co. v. Wallace
| Decision Date | 21 April 1893 |
| Citation | 26 A. 518,77 Md. 435 |
| Parties | BALTIMORE TRACTION CO. v. WALLACE. |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Baltimore city court.
Action by Charlotte Wallace against the Baltimore Traction Company for personal injuries sustained by being knocked down by one of defendant's cars while crossing its tracks. From a judgment in plaintiff's favor, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Argued before ALVEY, C.J., and BRYAN, ROBERTS, PAGE, McSHERRY FOWLER, and BRISCOE, JJ.
R. D Morrison, H. P. Munnikhuysen and N. P. Bond, for appellant.
Henry H. Goldsborough and Albert C. Applegarth, for appellee.
Charlotte Wallace, a feme sole, while crossing a track of the Baltimore Traction Company, was knocked down by one of its cars, and sustained serious and severe bodily injuries. She brought suit against the company, and recovered a judgment for $750. The principal questions arising in the case are whether the accident was caused by the negligence of the defendant; and whether there was contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff. It is necessary to examine the testimony in the record to ascertain what evidence was before the jury on these questions. The plaintiff testified that she was a domestic servant; and that at the time of the accident she was living at No. 827 Druid Hill avenue, and that about 7 o'clock in the evening she was sent by her employer to get milk for tea, and that she proceeded to cross Druid Hill avenue to go to a store on the other side of the street; that while still on the pavement, close to the curbstone, she looked up and down the street to see if a car was coming, and that she also listened, but, neither hearing nor seeing one she proceeded on her way across the street; and that she knew nothing more until she found herself lying on the pavement and learned that she had been struck by a car. She further testified that the accident occurred in the month of February, when it was rather dark at 7 o'clock in the evening, and that there was a curve in the street about half a block below the place where she lived, and that this curve prevented any one coming out of the house where she lived from seeing a car coming from Paca street until he or she got well out towards the curb, or until it got round the curve that she was crippled, and could not walk very fast. In coming into Druid Hill avenue the car turned a corner at Paca street. The distance of this corner from the place where the accident occurred is not stated in the record. One of the witnesses testified that it took the car about a minute to run from Paca street to the place where the accident took place. The gripman in charge of the car testified that the full speed of the car was 10 or 12 miles an hour, and that it was going at about half speed,--perhaps a little faster; that he had commenced to slack up because he was approaching Biddle street. Supposing, then, that the car was running at the rate of 5 miles an hour, it would go more than 146 yards in a minute. It was a legitimate question, then, for the jury, on the testimony of the plaintiff, whether she did not exercise all reasonable care. If, when she stopped and looked, the car had not turned the corner of Paca street, it was impossible for her to see it; and, if the jury believed that it passed over the intervening space in the period of a minute, they could well find that she was caught on the track without negligence on her part. One minute was rather a short time for a cripple to get out of the way, who had started on her way across the street, after having made an examination of the railroad track and found it clear. Finding it clear, it was not unreasonable for her to proceed to cross without fear of danger. It will, of course, be understood that we speak of the evidence as it appears in the record, without forming any opinion of its credibility. It was within the province of the jury to give or refuse their belief to it, as they should see fit. One of the witnesses for the defendant testified that the plaintiff had a shawl over her head. This might tend to obscure her view of the tracks. She, however, denied the fact, and it was for the jury to decide the question. Two witnesses testified that they saw the plaintiff approaching the track, and they hallooed to her, but she did not stop. It is probable that she did not hear them. One of these witnesses says that he was about 15 yards distant when he called to her, and the other says that he was about halfway between Moore's alley and Biddle street. The distance from Moore's alley to Biddle street, according to the testimony, is about a hundred feet. The gripman in charge of the car testified that he did not see the plaintiff until she was about 5 feet a way from the car, and that he could not bring the...
To continue reading
Request your trial