Sinclair v. City of Baltimore

• Decision Date: 08 March 1883
• Citation: 59 Md. 592
• Parties: MALCOMB SINCLAIR v. THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF BALTMORE.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

59 Md. 592

MALCOMB SINCLAIR v. THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF BALTMORE.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

March 8, 1883

APPEAL from the Court of Common Pleas.

The case is stated in the opinion of the Court.

Exception--The testimony on both sides being closed the plaintiff offered the two following prayers:

1. That if the jury find from the evidence in this cause, that Fayette street, a public street of the City of Baltimore was, on the night of the 26th March, 1881, obstructed by a pile of bricks and mortar lying in front of two houses then being erected on said Fayette street, and that said obstruction necessarily rendered Fayette street dangerous and unsafe for public travel, then it was the duty of the defendant, by proper guards, signals, lights, or other precautions, to warn persons of the dangerous condition of said street, so as to prevent injuries to persons passing along said street; and if the jury further find, that, on the night of said 26th of March, 1881, at the time of the accident to the plaintiff, there was no light or other signal on said obstruction, and that the defendant did not use ordinary care in providing proper precautions to warn the public of the dangerous condition of said obstruction, in consequence whereof the plaintiff was, on said night, while driving with ordinary care along said street, thrown from his carriage and injured, then the plaintiff is entitled to recover in this action.

2. That in estimating the damages to be given, the jury may consider the health, and mental and physical condition of the plaintiff before the injury complained of, as compared with his present condition of mind and body, in consequence of the injury, and whether the injury is, in its nature, permanent and how far it is calculated to disable the plaintiff from engaging in those employments and pursuits for which, in the absence of the injury, he would have been qualified, and also the physical and mental suffering to which he has been subjected, by reason of the said injury, and to allow such damages as, in the opinion of the jury, will be a fair and just compensation for the injury he has sustained.

And the defendant offered the following prayer:

That there is no sufficient legal evidence of negligence on the part of the defendant, its officers or agents, in this case, to entitle the plaintiff to recover, and the verdict of the jury must be for the defendant.

The Court (BROWN, J.) rejected the plaintiff's prayers, and granted the prayer of the defendant.

The plaintiff excepted, and the verdict and judgment being against him, he appealed.

The cause was argued before MILLER, ALVEY, ROBINSON, and IRVING, J.

Nicholas P. Bond, and Robert D. Morrison, for the appellant.

John P. Poe, City Counsellor, for the appellee.

ALVEY J., delivered the opinion of the Court.

This case is fully within the principle of Altvater's Case, 31 Md., 462, and must be ruled by it. There is nothing in the facts of the present case to distinguish it in principle, and the plaintiff failing to present a case upon which he could recover, the Court below could not do otherwise than direct a verdict for the defendant.

The grievance here complained of is not that the street was allowed to remain out of repair, or that a dangerous obstruction was produced therein while in course of repair, but that there was allowed to remain in it a dangerous obstruction, of which the plaintiff was unwarned, and by reason of which the injury occurred. The obstruction consisted of a pile of building material in front of a lot, upon which a building was in course of erection, on East Fayette street. The accident occurred about half-past ten o'clock at night. There was no guard or light to give warning of the presence of the obstruction, the signal light having gone out before that time; and the plaintiff, in driving along the street, ran his buggy over or against the pile of material, which resulted in the accident, causing a painful injury to himself personally, the death of his horse, and the breaking of his vehicle.

If there could be any liability on the part of the city to the plaintiff for the injury sustained, it must result from some misfeasance or non-feasance by it. What, then, was the duty of the defendant in the execution of the powers delegated to it? By the charter of the city "all the streets, lanes or alleys opened in the manner directed, shall be public highways, and be subject to the laws, regulalations, and ordinances applicable to public streets, lanes, or alleys, or parts thereof, in said city." The city has passed ordinances applicable to the...