Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Wachter

• Decision Date: 20 June 1883
• Parties: THE PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD COMPANY v. JACOB E. WACHTER.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

60 Md. 395

THE PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD COMPANY v. JACOB E. WACHTER.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

June 20, 1883

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Frederick County.

This suit was brought to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by the appellee by being run into by an engine of the appellant. The case is stated in the opinion of the court. The jury rendered a verdict for the plaintiff, for $4416, and judgment was entered accordingly. The defendant appealed.

The following are the prayers of the plaintiff, referred to in the opinion of the court:

2. That if, under the pleadings and evidence, the jury shall find that the plaintiff, at the time of the injury complained of if the jury shall find such injury, was in the employ of the defendant, and that said injury was occasioned by the negligence of the defendant in failing to exercise ordinary care and prudence for the protection of the plaintiff and its other employees, in providing reasonable rules and regulations for the government of its agents and employees in the running and management of trains and engines passing over its said road, to give notice to its employees who are required, in the discharge of their duties, to be on and about its railroad track, of approaching trains or engines and that said injury was the direct result of such negligence and want of ordinary care and prudence on the part of the defendant, and did not result from the want of ordinary care and prudence on the part of the plaintiff, directly contributing to such injury, that then the plaintiff is entitled to recover.

7. That defendant is liable in this action, if the jury shall find that the injury was caused by the negligence of defendant's employees; if the jury shall find that defendant could have made plaintiff's labor less hazardous and more safe, had its rules prescribed that notice of all special or extra trains or engines passing over its track, should be sent out in advance, so far as the same was practicable, and that such a rule would have prevented the injury complained of; provided, that the jury shall find such a rule was required by a reasonable regard for the safety of life and limb of those employed in its service, and was consistent with an efficient working of its road.

The cause was argued before Miller, Stone, Alvey, Robinson Irving and Ritchie, JJ.

James McSherry, for the appellant.

Wm. P. Maulsby, Jr., and Milton G. Urner, for the appellee.

Robinson J., delivered the opinion of the court.

We do not see on what grounds this action can be maintained. The appellee was at the time of the accident, and had been for at least eighteen months prior thereto, in the employment of the appellant. On the morning of the 16th of October, 1879, after having performed some work near Woodsborough, he, in company with Eyler, the foreman of the gang, and other repairmen who worked on that section of the appellant's road, proceeded down the track in a hand-car, to surface up the track, when they were run into by an extra train, coming in an opposite direction, which threw the handcar from the track, and thereby injured the appellee. The engine approached at a rapid speed, and without any previous warning. The morning was very foggy, so much so that one could hardly see the engine at a distance of forty yards.

Rule 386, in the book of rules adopted by the company, provides:

"That extra trains may pass over the road at any time, without previous notice, and foremen must always be prepared for them."

Eyler, the foreman, who was examined as a witness for the appellee, says he was supplied with the book of rules and knew of rule 386; that he loaned the book one day to the appellee; that witness had, from time to time, cautioned men to be on the look-out for extra trains passing over the road without previous notice.

The appellee, himself a witness, admits he had seen extra trains pass over the road without previous notice to any one; that he knew it was his duty to be always on the look-out for such trains; that the position of the men on the hand-car at the time of the accident, facing up and down the road in opposite directions, was to be on the look-out for danger in either direction, and that extra trains, running without previous notice, was one of these dangers.

Upon such proof as this, there ought not to be any difficulty in regard to the rules of law by which the rights and obligations of the parties are to be determined. When the appellee entered...