Lohr v. Upper Potomac River Commission
Decision Date | 26 May 1942 |
Docket Number | 16. |
Citation | 26 A.2d 547,180 Md. 584 |
Parties | LOHR v. UPPER POTOMAC RIVER COMMISSION. |
Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Allegany County; William A. Huster Judge.
Action by Marion Lohr against the Upper Potomac River Commission for injuries allegedly sustained by the plaintiff and to her automobile by reason of rock and debris placed by the defendant in the public highway over which the plaintiff was traveling. From a judgment for the defendant, the plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
William L. Wilson, Jr., and Edward J. Ryan, both of Cumberland, for appellant.
William C. Walsh, of Cumberland (George W. Leege and W. Earle Cobey, both of Cumberland, on the brief), for appellee.
Before BOND, C.J., and SLOAN, DELAPLAINE, COLLINS FORSYTHE, and MARBURY, JJ.
This is an appeal from a judgment for the defendant entered by the Circuit Court for Allegany County after sustaining a demurrer filed by the defendant to the declaration filed by the plaintiff.
The declaration alleges that the plaintiff, appellant here, Miss Marion Lohr, a public school teacher, sustained injuries to herself, and to her automobile, by reason of the negligence of the servants of the appellee, the Upper Potomac River Commission, a body corporate, in placing large quantities of rock and debris in a public highway over which she was travelling.
The Upper Potomac River Commission was created by the General Assembly of Maryland, Acts of 1935, chapter 409. In section one of that Act it was provided that certain parts of Allegany and Garrett Counties should comprise the 'Upper Potomac River District,' and by section two the Commission of three members was created as a corporate body with the necessary power to employ personnel for carrying out the duties of the Commission therein imposed upon it.
In section three of the Act the powers and duties of the Commission are fully set out and described. It is therein provided that the Commission shall have
Section four of the Act authorizes the Commission to accept State Federal and private grants of money, or other aid, in carrying out its work. Sections five and six, important to keep in mind in this case, are as follows:
Section six, in part, provides: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Burns v. Mayor and City Council of Rockville
...against it through the borrowing of funds, appropriations and local taxes. 4 The Court of Appeals in Lohr v. Upper Potomac River Commission, 180 Md. 584, 588-89, 26 A.2d 547 (1942), when determining whether the phrase "to sue and be sued" contained in the Act creating the Upper Potomac Rive......
-
Jackson v. Housing Opportunities Commission of Montgomery County
...created. O & B, Inc. (v. Maryland-Nat'l Capital Park and Planning Commission, 279 Md. 459, 369 A.2d 553 (1977)); Lohr v. River Commission, 180 Md. 584, 26 A.2d 547 (1942); Weddle v. School Commissioners, 94 Md. 334, 51 A. 289 (1902)." 284 Md. at 513, 397 A.2d at 1033 (Emphasis supplied). Al......
-
Foley Const. Co. v. Ward
...is immune from suit for breach of a building contract in the absence of legislation to the contrary. In Lohr v. Upper Potomac River Commission, 180 Md. 584, 26 A.2d 547, it was held that the state agency was not liable in a tort case even though the Act under which it was created expressly ......