Philadelphia, B. & W.R. Co. v. Mitchell
| Decision Date | 31 March 1908 |
| Citation | 69 A. 422,107 Md. 600 |
| Parties | PHILADELPHIA, B. & W. R. CO. v. MITCHELL. |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Harford County; Geo. L. Van Bibber Judge.
Action by Aderina S. Mitchell against the Philadelphia, Baltimore & Washington Railroad Company. From a judgment for plaintiff defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Thomas H. Robinson, for appellant.
William P. Constable and James J. Archer, for appellee.
The appellee recovered a judgment against the appellant in the circuit court for Harford county for damages for injuries inflicted on her, while walking along a much used public street in the city of Havre de Grace, by the falling of a hammer from an overhead bridge in course of construction on the appellant's line of railway. From that judgment this appeal was taken. There is but one bill of exceptions in the record, and that presents for our review only the rulings of the court below on the prayers offered at the close of the case.
The declaration contains two counts, both of which aver that the appellant company owned and operated a railroad from Pennsylvania into Maryland, and at the time of the injury complained of had acquired a new right of way through the city of Havre de Grace and under the authority of chapter 116, p. 206, of the Acts of 1904, and with the consent of the city was engaged in constructing along its new right of way an iron bridge over a much traveled street, called "Stokes street," in said city; and that the plaintiff, while walking along said street, in the exercise of due care, under the bridge then in course of construction was struck and severely injured by a hammer or other missile which fell therefrom. The first count avers generally that the fall of the hammer was due to the negligence of the company in constructing the bridge. The second count avers that the nature of the construction of the bridge was such that blocks of wood, iron plates, bolts, rivets, and other things used in connection therewith were continually falling from the bridge to the street beneath it, and endangered travel thereon, and it became and was the duty of the company to guard the work for the protection and safety of persons traveling upon the street, but that it failed to discharge said duty, and the plaintiff was injured by reason of such failure. To this declaration, the company as defendant pleaded the general issue. The undisputed evidence sustains the allegations of the declaration as to the existence of the defendant company and its authority to construct the bridge, and that the construction was in progress on September 18, 1905, when the alleged injury occurred to the plaintiff. It also appears without contradiction that Stokes street was a much traveled public street of the city of Havre de Grace, and that the bridge crossed it at an elevation of about 14 feet by a single span 70 feet long composed of 4 parallel metal girders.
There is evidence in the record tending to show that in the construction of such bridges, when the workmen are engaged in riveting the ties and braces between the girders composing the span, they are compelled to work with great rapidity in order to put the rivets in place and clinch them while at a white or red heat, and as a result rivets, tools, and other objects handled with such rapidity frequently fall to the ground beneath and render it unsafe for travel unless properly guarded. There is like evidence that in the construction of the bridge now in question such objects did in fact frequently fall upon the street below it, and that no precautions were taken to hinder the public from passing under the bridge or to prevent the falling of the objects from it. There is also evidence tending to show that the parties in charge of the construction of the bridge did use suitable means to protect from injury the public passing under it, by the presence of watchmen and by barricading from time to time the particular portion of the street lying under the part of the bridge on which the work then was being done. We do not notice in detail the conflicting evidence of the many witnesses who testified in reference to these facts because the weight of the evidence was a matter for the jury.
The only evidence in reference to the occurrence of the accident by which the appellee claims to have been injured is her own testimony. According to her account she went down Stokes street in the early afternoon on her way to Dr. Crothers' office to pay him a bill. She said that as she was passing under the bridge in question she noticed a child there playing with a little wagon, and just then, to use her own language, She further said that the umbrella was torn and one of its ribs broken by the impact with the hammer, and that she thought it was the hammer striking her umbrella and not its striking the walk at her feet which caused her to throw herself away from it, but that it all happened at almost the same instant. According to her further testimony she went on to Dr. Crothers' office and paid her bill, mentioning the fact of the accident to him and he congratulated her on her escape. She then returned to her home. By the time she got there she was suffering much pain and was compelled to lie down at once. She continued to suffer greatly, and on the next day spit five or six large mouthfuls of blood. In a few days she was compelled to go to bed and remain there for about three weeks, and has ever since then been in poor health and subject to frequently recurring spells of violent internal throbbing, which incapacitate her from performing her ordinary domestic duties. Her own testimony and that of her acquaintances was that prior to her injury she had been a healthy woman with an unusual degree of physical vigor. She also testified to having been in an early stage of pregnancy when injured, and to have suffered a miscarriage five days thereafter. There was also the testimony of four physicians who had attended or examined her professionally since her injury tending to show that she had an aneurism of the abdominal aorta of a serious and incurable character, which was first recognized about a week after her injury and might have been caused by it. Defendant proved that the bridge was constructed by Brant & Stewart, a firm of bridge constructors of large experience under a contract for the construction of all the bridges in connection with the change of the company's line between Principio and Oakington, except the one over the Susquehanna river; and that, by the terms of the contract, the contractors furnished all of the materials and performed all of the labor required...
To continue reading
Request your trial