Hanrathy v. Northern Cent. Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 07 March 1877
• Parties: PATRICK HANRATHY v. THE NORTHERN CENTRAL RAILWAY COMPANY.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

46 Md. 280

PATRICK HANRATHY v. THE NORTHERN CENTRAL RAILWAY COMPANY.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

March 7, 1877

APPEAL from the Superior Court of Baltimore City.

The case is sufficiently stated in the opinion of the Court.

Exception.--The plaintiff offered the six following prayers:

1. If the jury shall believe from the evidence, that the plaintiff entered the service of the Northern Central Railway Company and whilst in such service, the said railway company did not use reasonable care to avoid exposing its servant, the plaintiff in this case, to extraordinary risk, which could not have been reasonably anticipated by the said plaintiff at the time of the contract of said service, but that plaintiff was injured through the want of such reasonable care on the part of the defendant, then the plaintiff is entitled to recover; provided they shall also find, that the said plaintiff did not contribute to his own injury by negligence or carelessness on his part.

2. If from the evidence the jury find, that the steam hammer mentioned by the witnesses, was defective and insufficient at the time of the accident, and that such defective condition of the hammer was well known to the defendant, but unknown to the plaintiff, and was the cause of the injury sued for, and that the defendant did not use reasonable care in procuring said hammer or in repairing the same, after such knowledge of its defectiveness, or in procuring faithful and competent co-employés of the plaintiff, whose duty it was to keep said hammer in good condition and repair, then the plaintiff is entitled to recover, unless they should further find that at the time of said injury, the plaintiff was not using ordinary care, or that he contributed to said injury by the want of ordinary care and prudence on his part.

3. If from the evidence, the jury find that the plaintiff was employed by the defendant as an ordinary day laborer, and placed by it in contact with dangerous machinery, and that thereby he was exposed to extraordinary risks, which could not have been reasonably anticipated at the time of the contract of service, that such condition of said machinery was unknown to the plaintiff, but was known to the defendant or to its agent having general charge of that department of its works, or could by the use of reasonable care and prudence on their part, have become known to the defendant or to such agent, and that the defendant or its agent could by reasonable care have avoided exposing the plaintiff to such risks, and that by reason of the dangerous nature of such machinery the plaintiff was injured, then the plaintiff is entitled to recover; provided they further find that at the time of the said injury, the plaintiff was exercising due care, that he did not by want of ordinary care or prudence contribute to such injury, and that he could not by the use of ordinary care and prudence on his part, have avoided the effects of the want of due care and diligence on the part of the defendant.

4. If from the evidence, the jury find that the defendants owned and operated extensive workshops in the City of Baltimore and that the plaintiff was employed in the blacksmith shop therein, as an ordinary day laborer, and that while so employed, he was ordered by the officer of the defendant having charge of that department of its works, to assist at a steam hammer in said shop; that said hammer was then, and had been for a long time before, of unsound and insufficient construction, and dangerous to the employés tending it, and that such unsound and dangerous condition was unknown to the plaintiff, but known to the defendant's agent having general charge of said shop, and to the defendant, or would be known to such agent, and the defendant by the exercise of ordinary prudence and care on their part, and that the defendant could by the exercise of reasonable care and diligence, have provided a new hammer to take the place of such unsound hammer, or could by the exercise of the like care and diligence, have repaired the said hammer, so as make it of sound and approved construction; yet that the defendant by not using ordinary care and prudence in the premises, in providing for its operations sound and approved machinery, injured the plaintiff, then the plaintiff is entitled to recover, provided the jury further find that the plaintiff did not contribute to said injury by the want of ordinary care on his part, and that at the time of said injury, he was using ordinary care.

5. If from the evidence, the jury find that the plaintiff was employed by the defendant in its workshops, as an ordinary day laborer, then in entering such employment, the plaintiff had a right to expect that the defendant had used ordinary care and diligence, in the selection of the machinery with which he was to be brought in contact, and if they find from the evidence, that the defendant placed the plaintiff in contact with machinery of unsound and unapproved construction, and it, or its agents, to whom it had delegated general control of such work, and the employés therein, (provided they find the defendant had an agent or agents to whom such power was delegated,) knew, or by reasonable care and diligence, could have known of such defective condition of such machinery, and the plaintiff was injured by such machinery, because of its unsound and unapproved construction, while he was in ignorance of such defective condition, and that the defendant or its agent or agents could, by reasonable care and prudence, have avoided exposing the plaintiff to such risks, then the plaintiff is entitled to recover, unless the jury further find that he contributed to such injury by the want of ordinary care and prudence on his part, or that at the time of such injury he was not using due care.

6. If the jury find for the plaintiff, then in estimating the damages they are to consider the health and condition of the plaintiff before the injuries complained of, as compared with his present condition in consequence of said injuries; and whether the said injuries are in their nature permanent, and how far they are calculated to disable the plaintiff from engaging in those business pursuits for which, in the absence of said injuries, he would have been qualified, and also the physical and mental suffering to which he has been subjected by reason of the said injuries, and to allow such damages as in the opinion of the jury will be a fair and just compensation for the injuries which the plaintiff has suffered.

And the defendant offered the following prayer:

1. That although the jury may find from the evidence, that the injuries to the plaintiff were caused by the defective condition of the steam hammer, or by the negligence of the...