Duvall v. Baltimore & O.R. Co.
| Decision Date | 24 March 1891 |
| Citation | 21 A. 496,73 Md. 516 |
| Parties | DUVALL v. BALTIMORE & OHIO R. CO. |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Appeal from circuit court, Carroll county.
Argued before ALVEY, C.J., and MILLER, IRVING, BRYAN, MCSHERRY BRISCOE, and ROBINSON, JJ.
Jos. D. Brooks, Wm. A. McKeldip, and H. M Clabaugh, for appellant.
John K. Cowen, for appellee.
We agree with the court below that there is no evidence in this case from which the jury could fairly and reasonably find negligence on the part of the defendant company. The freight train was standing on the track at Mount Airy station, near a public crossing, waiting for telegraphic orders to move. The plaintiff, on horseback, rode up to the crossing, saw the engine on the track, and saw the flagman standing by the side of the crossing, with his flag furled, thus indicating there was no danger to be apprehended from the movement of the trains to persons desiring to cross the track; and while the plaintiff was in the act of crossing the track there was a sudden escape of steam from an automatic safety-valve attached to the engine, in consequence of which her horse was frightened, and she was thrown on the ground and injured. The defendant's engines are gauged to carry a certain pressure of steam before they are put on the road, and when the pressure reaches this point the steam escapes through the safety-valve, acting automatically, and neither the fireman nor engineer have any control over it. This, in short, is the plaintiff's case, and, if so, there is no evidence, it seems to us, from which negligence can fairly be imputed to the defendant. Its train was lawfully on its track, --this cannot be disputed; and the noise which frightened the plaintiff's horse was caused by the escape of steam through an automatic valve,--an attachment which it had the right to use in operating its engine. But then it is said the plaintiff had the right to cross the defendant's track. This is true, and the case then is one in which two parties have equal rights, in the exercise of which injury may result to one of them with or without liability, according to the conduct of each. It was no doubt the duty of the defendant in the management of its train and engine to exercise reasonable care and prudence to avoid injury to the plaintiff and to others crossing its track; but to hold the defendant liable there must be some evidence of negligence. Now, it was argued there was negligence in permitting the pressure of steam to reach a point at which it escapes through the safety-valve while...
To continue reading
Request your trial