Northern Cent. Ry. Co. v. Medairy

• Decision Date: 23 June 1897
• Citation: 37 A. 796,86 Md. 168
• Parties: NORTHERN CENT. RY. CO. v. MEDAIRY.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

37 A. 796

86 Md. 168

NORTHERN CENT. RY. CO. v. MEDAIRY.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

June 23, 1897

Appeal from circuit court, Carroll county.

Action by Maud Medairy, by her mother and next friend, Annie R Medairy, against the Northern Central Railway Company. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed.

Argued before McSHERRY, C.J., and BRYAN, PAGE, BOYD, BRISCOE, and FOWLER, JJ.

Bernard Carter, William Grason, and Jas. A. C. Bond, for appellant.

John I Yellott and Clabaugh & Roberts, for appellee.

FOWLER J.

This is an action to recover damages for injuries alleged to have been sustained through the negligence of the defendant, the Northern Central Railway Company, by Maud Medairy, a young girl. She sues by her mother and next friend. At the close of the plaintiff's case, the defendant asked the court to take it from the jury, because, as was contended, no legally sufficient evidence had been offered to show negligence on the part of the defendant or its agents. But the prayer was refused. We are of opinion it should have been granted, because we are unable to discover in the record any evidence legally sufficient to support the verdict of the jury. The first witness called by the plaintiff to testify as to the facts of the accident is Albert Cramer. His testimony is as follows: "I am employed by the Northern Central Railroad, and am the engineer of the train that killed one of these young ladies and crippled the other. My train is known as a second-class train, a fast freight train. We were running about 20 miles an hour, our schedule time. Our only stops were to take water. We were three minutes late that night at Ph nix, and I was not trying to make up time, but just used my schedule time. I blew my whistle for the crossing, and the engine bell was rung. The engine bell was rung after I sounded for the crossing. I blew for the crossing at the whistling post about a quarter of a mile below." On cross-examination witness testified as follows: "I left Baltimore that afternoon, the 9th of December, at 5:40. I blew my whistle for this crossing at the whistling post, which is about a quarter of a mile from the crossing, and is nearer to Baltimore than the water tank mentioned in the evidence. The fireman rang the bell. I kept a lookout to see if I could see anything, and I passed the engine of the other train coming south, at the water tower. I was on the lookout all the way up, and the first I saw of these girls was just about the time I struck them. I saw the packages going in the air, but I could not tell whether I had hit them or not. I always keep a lookout, especially around a station. These girls must have been about the outside rail. I blew 'Down brakes!' and stopped as quick as I could." The only other witness who was examined by the plaintiff to show how she was injured was the plaintiff herself. She said she lived at Ph nix, and had been working at the factory there for about three years. On December 9, 1895, in the evening, when it was quite dark, she and her sister were going to visit a neighbor on the west side of the railroad. "While we were crossing the bridge, we heard the south-bound train whistle for Ph nix, and we walked to the end, nearly, of the bridge, and stopped until the train passed; and we walked up and down the track, and listened, and we heard no noise except what the down train made, and we saw the crossing clear, and we started to cross, and I remember we got over the first rail, and I knew no more." The bridge which the witness mentions is a part of the public road which crosses the railroad at this point, and the west end of the bridge is several feet east of the track which is used for the north-bound trains. The plaintiff could not tell how long she stood on this bridge, waiting for the south-bound train to pass; but she said, when it passed, she looked up and down the road, and saw nothing, and heard nothing except the noise of the train that was going down. She was unable to state the distance from the point where she stood on the bridge to the railroad track where she was struck, nor could she say how far down the railroad she could see a train coming at the time when she looked. From this testimony it is not only evident that there is no proof of any act of negligence on the part of the defendant, but there is positive proof contained in the testimony of the witness Cramer, which is uncontradicted, that the proper and usual signals were given, and the proper lookout kept up, as the train approached the station. The plaintiff does not undertake to say that the electric signal bell at the crossing was not ringing as she approached the track. She says she did not hear it, and that, if it did ring, she did not remember hearing it. In point of fact, the bell was ringing, as is shown by the overwhelming proof of defendant's witnesses. Nor does the...