Buttner v. South Baltimore Steel Car & Foundry Co.
| Decision Date | 22 March 1905 |
| Citation | 60 A. 597,101 Md. 168 |
| Parties | BUTTNER v. SOUTH BALTIMORE STEEL CAR & FOUNDRY CO. |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Superior Court of Baltimore City; Charles E. Phelps Judge.
Action by George J. Buttner against the South Baltimore Steel Car & Foundry Company. From a judgment in favor of defendant plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
Argued before McSHERRY, C.J., and FOWLER, BRISCOE, BOYD, PAGE PEARCE, SCHMUCKER, and JONES, JJ.
Thomas G. Hayes, for appellant.
Vernon Cook, for appellee.
The plaintiff, who is the apellant in this case, was employed by the South Baltimore Steel Car & Foundry Company as assistant brakeman, and to couple cars in its yard. While in the performance of his duty he was injured, as he alleges, through the negligence of his employer, and he brought an action in the superior court of Baltimore City to recover damages as a compensation therefor. At the close of the testimony of the plaintiff--he being the only witness produced to sustain the allegations of his narr.--the learned judge below, at the request of the defendant, withdrew the case from the jury. Judgment having been entered in favor of the defendant, the plaintiff has appealed. The only question, therefore, presented is whether the plaintiff offered any testimony legally sufficient to entitle him to recover. In order to determine this question it will be necessary, of course, to make a careful examination of the testimony, which, however, is embraced in very narrow limits; only one witness--the plaintiff himself--having been examined, as we have seen.
It appears that the defendant company is engaged in Baltimore in the manufacture of steel cars, and for that purpose has a factory, and a yard attached thereto, in which cars containing castings are moved from place to place. The plaintiff testifies that his duty as assistant brakeman was to couple cars, and that before he was employed by the defendant he had been for eight months with the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad, acting as brakeman, and engaged in coupling cars, but that the couplings used by the railroad were automatic; that on the 23d day of September, 1903, while trying to make a coupling, he was caught between two cars; that one of the drawheads (sometimes called "bumpers") project out about 6 or 8 inches; that two of them coming together, through defective construction, drew the drawhead back through the sill, which caught him in a position where there was only a space of 2 P1/2 to 3 inches; that he became unconscious, and dropped out towards the side when the cars were separated; that he was up in the office of the defendant when he recovered consciousness; that the distance between the sills, when in a proper position, and the cars are coupled, would be from 18 to 20 inches. The witness continued, in answer to various questions asked him by his counsel, to testify as follows: That the wood of the sill was rotten, and the bumper or drawhead "went right through that, and it caused" him to be caught between the sills of the cars; that he could not see any defect in the drawhead; that "it was a defect in construction"; that he had never been warned about the old casting cars the defendant used in its yard. In regard to the nature of his injuries, the plaintiff testified that he was in bed the evening of the day of the accident and the next day; that he returned to his work with the defendant on the third day after he was injured, and remained there for two weeks, when he was discharged because he could not perform the duties as he had done before he was injured; and that he was still suffering from the effects of the accident.
Now, if this were the only testimony in the case, perhaps the plaintiff would have good grounds to complain of the action of the court below in withdrawing the case from the jury. But the cross-examination of the plaintiff shows clearly that almost all he knows is that he was injured between the two cars and rendered unconscious, and that when he regained consciousness he found himself some distance from the scene of the accident, in the office of the defendant. The theory which it was sought to establish by the plaintiff's testimony appears to be that the cause of the accident was "defective construction," as the witness several times thus described the alleged defect in the coupling drawheads, or bumpers, and said that on the occasion of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial