Grinath v. Baltimore & Belair Electric Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 29 February 1924
• Docket Number: 3.
• Citation: 125 A. 604,145 Md. 290
• Parties: GRINATH v. BALTIMORE & BELAIR ELECTRIC RY. CO.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

125 A. 604

145 Md. 290

GRINATH v. BALTIMORE & BELAIR ELECTRIC RY. CO.

No. 3.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

February 29, 1924

Appeal from Circuit Court, Harford County; Wm. H. Harlan, Judge.

"To be officially reported."

Action by Cecelia A. Grinath against the Baltimore & Belair Electric Railway Company. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Reversed, and new trial awarded.

Argued before BOYD, C.J., and THOMAS, PATTISON, URNER, ADKINS OFFUTT, and DIGGES, JJ.

John L G. Lee, of Baltimore (Jacob M. Moses, of Baltimore, on the brief), for appellant.

Thomas H. Robinson, of Baltimore, for appellee.

URNER J.

After boarding an electric car of the defendant at the terminus of its line at Carney, in Baltimore county, and having paid her fare as she entered, the plaintiff was proceeding to a seat when the car started suddenly and she was thrown to the floor and injured. The testimony refers to the car as a small one with only four wheels. There is a long seat on each side facing the aisle. The car is operated by one man, who acts as motorman and conductor. The fares are placed in a receptacle by the passengers as they enter the car.

The accident was thus described by the plaintiff in her testimony:

"I was just about to take my seat in that car--that is the place where I fell. I just left the conductor and had gone into the car when he started the car with a sudden jerk so sudden that the windows shook; and I grabbed for myself, but I was twisted around and fell over on my back, and the car kept on moving. The people in the car hollered to the conductor, and then he seen me lying there. As I went in on the front of the car, the car started with a terrible jerk. A small person might have caught themselves. I couldn't hold myself, and I turned around and fell down on my back. I was laying there a second or so when the conductor turned around, saw me lying on the floor of the car and he laughed at me. I felt sick and I got Mrs. Grasmick to help me to a seat there in the car, and then we went on our journey."

The conductor--

"started the car and never looked around to see if everything was all right; he just went right ahead. He just seen that I put the fare in the box, and then he started the car."

There were hand straps in the car, in reference to which the plaintiff testified:

"I tried to get hold of them, but the jerk of the car threw me down."

Mrs. Grasmick, who was accompanying the plaintiff, Mrs. Grinath, on the trip, and who preceded her as they entered the car, testified that Mrs. Grinath "put the fares in the box" and "was coming right after" the witness, when there was a "sudden jerk of the car," and the witness "grabbed hold of the back of the seat," and "caught herself and sat down," but Mrs. Grinath "was not within reach of anything and she fell down on her back." Mrs. Grinath said that she did not fall against Mrs. Grasmick but "was whirled away from her and fell on the floor." The plaintiff is a large and heavy woman, and it is proved that she was seriously injured by her fall. There were two other passengers in the car, and we infer from the testimony that they were seated when the car started.

The motorman, according to evidence in the record, accounted for the sudden movement of the car at the time of the accident as being due to the fact that it was not "working properly," and that when he turned on the power "she didn't seem to pick up right," and when he applied the power again "she started with a quicker grab than he expected."

At the close of the testimony for the plaintiff, a verdict was directed for the defendant at its request, and the only question to be determined is whether that ruling was correct.

A presumption of negligence on the part of the defendant would not arise from the mere fact of the plaintiff's fall as the result of the sudden start of the car, unless the movement was unusually abrupt. Irregular motions are unavoidable and to be anticipated in the ordinary course of railway transportation. Dawson v. Md. Elec. Ry., 119 Md. 376, 86 A. 1041; Charles v. United Rys. Co., 101 Md. 186, 60 A. 249; Baltimore & Yorktown Turnpike Rd. v. Cason, 72 Md. 381, 20 A. 113. But if the sudden starting of a railway car, resulting in an injury to a passenger, is so violent as to indicate a want of care in the management of the car or a defect in its equipment, the burden of proof should rest upon the carrier, in regard to the question as to whether the duty to provide for the passenger's safety was properly performed.

In 10 C.J. 947, it is said, in reference to the operation of street cars:

"As a general rule it is sufficient, as regards a boarding passenger, that the car is held stationary until he has reached a place of safety on the car, and hence,

...