Przyborowski v. Baltimore Transit Co.

Decision Date17 June 1948
Docket Number184.
Citation59 A.2d 687,191 Md. 63
PartiesPRZYBOROWSKI v. BALTIMORE TRANSIT CO. (two cases).
CourtMaryland Court of Appeals

Appeals from Superior Court of Baltimore City; Emory H. Niles, Judge.

Action by Veronica Przyborowski against the Baltimore Transit Company to recover damages for personal injuries, tried together with an action by Stanley Przyborowski against the Baltimore Transit Company for loss of services and expenses. From judgments on directed verdicts in favor of defendant the plaintiffs appeal.

Affirmed.

MARBURY C.J., and GRASON, J., dissenting.

Pierson & Pierson, all of Baltimore, on the brief), for appellants.

James J. Lindsay, of Baltimore (Philip S. Ball, of Baltimore, on the brief), for appellee.

Before MARBURY, C.J., and DELAPLAINE, COLLINS, GRASON, HENDERSON, and MARKELL, JJ.

HENDERSON Judge.

Mrs. Przyborowski was injured while a passenger on a trackless trolley operated by the appellee. She brought an action for damages, and her husband brought a companion suit to recover for loss of services and expenses. Both cases were heard before the court and a jury in the Superior Court of Baltimore City. At the conclusion of the plaintiff's case the court granted prayers for directed verdicts in favor of the defendant. The cases come here on appeal from judgments entered upon those verdicts.

On June 7, 1946, Mrs. Przyborowski, a married woman 49 years of age, in apparent good health and weighing some 154 pounds, rode to the Broadway Market on a trackless trolley. She paid her fare and received a 'return slip', which entitled her to a reduced fare for a return trip. After completing her purchase, three pounds of fish, she boarded a trackless trolley at Eastern Avenue and Ann Street. She put her fare in the fare-box and handed the 'return slip' to the operator. However, the slip fluttered to the floor, and she stooped over to pick it up. She testified that when the slip fell the operator gave her 'a very nasty look' and 'mumbled something'; she said she was sorry; the trolley 'started with a very fast jerk,' just as 'I had the slip in my hand,' and 'threw me on the right side.' Just how this could cause her to fall on her right side is not made clear. There was testimony that she had received a permanent injury to her right side in a previous accident, for which she recovered damages. She further testified: 'I stooped down on both my knees'; the operator 'had seen me stooping down to pick up the slip' before he started.

This was the only testimony as to how the accident occurred. There was no testimony that any other passenger was unbalanced by the starting motion. A photograph was introduced showing the operator's seat on the left front of the trolley, the farebox to his right, opposite the folding entrance doors, a horizontal metal bar between the farebox and the door, and two upright metal bars on each side in front of the front longitudinal seats. One of these bars is located immediately behind and to the right of the operator's seat. Thus the appellant had within reach ample means to support herself. There was no evidence that she had hold of anything when the car started.

In the case of Brocato v. United Rys. & Electric Co. 129 Md. 572, 99 A. 792, there was testimony that the plaintiff sustained a fall, while stepping from the back platfrom into the car, due to a 'jerk of the car' in starting. The car 'jerked hard' in starting and threw her down. This court said: 'If there was any negligence on the part of the company, it must be found in the starting of the car before the plaintiff was in a place of safety, or in the defendant's negligent operation of the car resulting in the 'jerk' complained of.' In sustaining a directed verdict, this court said that after a passenger is on board, it is not incumbent upon a carrier to wait until the passenger has reached a seat before starting, or to afford assistance to a passenger, not laboring under some apparent infirmity...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Mansaray v. Wash. Metro. Area Transit Auth.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Maryland
    • January 10, 2014
    ...board, to protect themselves against the normal motions of the vehicle incident to public transportation.Przyborowski v. Baltimore Transit Co., 191 Md. 63, 67, 59 A.2d 687, 689 (1948). Ms. Mansaray rides the bus daily. She knew she had to protect herself from abrupt movements while riding o......
  • Lampkin v. Wash. Metro. Area Transit Auth.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Maryland
    • April 11, 2022
    ... ...          An ... invitee is a person on the property for a purpose related to ... the owner's business. See Baltimore Gas & Elec ... Co. v. Flippo , 348 Md. 680, 688 (1998). A property owner ... generally owes an invitee a duty to use “reasonable and ... operation, unless the passenger labors under some apparent ... infirmity or disability.” (quoting Przyborowski v ... Baltimore Transit Co. , 191 Md. 63, 66 (1948)) ...          Because ... there is no evidence that WMATA had actual ... ...

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT