Spitze v. Baltimore & O.R. Co.
| Decision Date | 14 January 1892 |
| Citation | 23 A. 307,75 Md. 162 |
| Parties | SPITZE v. BALTIMORE & O. R. CO. |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Baltimore city court.
Action by Henry C. Spitze against the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company for personal injuries. Judgment for defendant. Plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
Argued before ALVEY, C.J., and MILLER, IRVING, FOWLER, and MCSHERRY JJ.
J V. L. Findlay and Thos. Mackenzie, for appellant.
John K. Cowen, W. Irvine Cross, and Geo. Dobbin Penniman, for appellee.
This suit was brought to recover damages for a personal injury received by the appellant while in the service of the appellee. The appellant was a blacksmith, and in the discharge of his duties had occasion to use a steam triphammer owned by the railroad company. One of the housings of this hammer was insecurely fastened, and as a consequence, when the hammer was being operated by a co-employe of the plaintiff, it suddenly fell upon and seriously crushed the right hand of the appellant. To the declaration the company pleaded-- First, not guilty; and, secondly, two releases executed by the appellant under seal. The appellant demurred to this latter plea, and, upon the city court overruling the demurrer, he filed a replication, to which the appellee demurred. This demurrer was sustained, and the appellant then filed another replication to the second plea, and averred that the releases were obtained by the fraud of the railroad company. Issue was joined upon a traverse of this replication, and the case proceeded to trial. Upon the conclusion of the case made by the plaintiff, the defendant asked and the court gave two instructions which withdrew the case from the jury. By the first the jury were told that, under the undisputed evidence, the general foreman of the blacksmith shop was a fellow-servant of the plaintiff, and, if the injury complained of was occasioned by the negligence of the foreman in not repairing the hammer, then the plaintiff could not recover unless the jury should find that the defendant did not use reasonable care in the employment of the foreman, and that there was no legally sufficient evidence adduced to show that the company had not used reasonable care in the employment of the foreman. By the second they were instructed "that the releases signed by the plaintiff are an absolute bar to the right to recover in this suit, unless there be evidence legally sufficient to show that the said plaintiff was induced to sign the said releases by fraud, and that there has been no evidence produced legally sufficient to show such fraud, and the verdict of the jury must therefore be for the defendant."
A proper understanding of the questions involved requires a brief statement of the material facts disclosed by the record. In 1882 the appellant became a member of the Baltimore & Ohio Employes' Relief Association, a body corporate then in existence. By the provisions of its by-laws and the terms expressed in the applications of persons who desired to avail of its benefits, all members--and membership was limited to employes of the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company and other railroad lines operated by it--were required to contribute a percentage of their monthly wages for the formation of a fund out of which those who might be injured or disabled or become sick while in the company's service would receive a daily allowance, regulated according to the amount of their respective contributions. It was plainly stipulated that upon the payment of these allowances the employe receiving them should execute a release discharging the railroad company from the liability for the injury occasioning his disability. The eighth section of the constitution of the association declared that, for the purpose of lessening the contributions of members, the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company had consented to bear all the expenses necessary to the proper management of the association, and had contributed $100,000 towards its funds, and that the whole of the interest received from that contribution would be used every year for the same purpose. When the appellant was injured he was a member of this association. On the 30th day of May, 1887, he received from the relief association the sum of $58.50, and on the 20th of June following the further sum of $36, these amounts being the sums to which he was entitled under the rules of the association. He was injured on March 16, 1887. Upon each of the two occasions he received the money from the relief association as just mentioned he executed a release, under seal, pursuant to the terms of his application for membership; and by these releases he declared: "I do hereby release and forever discharge the said company * * * from all claims or demands for damages, indemnity, or other forms of compensation I now or may or can hereafter have against either of the aforesaid companies by reason of said injuries." Upon his recovery he returned to the service of the company in a different capacity, and for a part of the time at reduced wages. On March 11, 1890, he instituted this suit.
These releases are the ones relied on in the second plea. We can discover no error in the court's ruling on the demurrer to that plea, and no point has been made with reference to that ruling in the brief of the appellant's counsel.
The replication first filed to the second plea avers that the appellant became a member of the relief association upon the faith of the statements made in article 8 of the constitution; that the railroad company did not bear all the expenses necessary to the proper management of the affairs of the association, and that it did not contribute the whole of the interest received from the $100,000 to lessen the contributions of the members; and that the company had not guarantied the faithful and true performance of the association's obligations, as it was required to do by the act of assembly incorporating the association; and that "by reason of the defendant's default or misrepresentation in the premises, the said papers cannot have the effect of releasing the...
To continue reading
Request your trial