United Railways & Elec. Co. of Baltimore v. State

CourtCourt of Appeals of Maryland
Writing for the CourtMcSHERRY, C. J.
Citation49 A. 923,93 Md. 619
Decision Date13 June 1901
PartiesUNITED RAILWAYS & ELECTRIC CO. OF BALTIMORE v. STATE, to Use of DEANE et al.
49 A. 923
93 Md. 619

UNITED RAILWAYS & ELECTRIC CO. OF BALTIMORE
v.
STATE, to Use of DEANE et al.

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

June 13, 1901.


Appeal from superior court of Baltimore city; John J. Dobler, Judge.

Action by the state of Maryland, to the use of Emma P. Deane and others, against the United Railways & Electric Company of Baltimore. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Argued before McSILBERY.C. J., and FOWLER, BRISCOE, PEARCE, SCHMUCKER, and JONES, JJ.

Fielder C. Slingluff, George D. Penniman, and T. Rowland Slingluff, for appellant.

John Prentiss Poe, Daniel B. Chambers, and John R. M. Staum, for appellee.

McSHERRY, C. J. This suit was brought in the name of the state of Maryland, to the use of the widow and children of Frank H. Deane, against the United Railways & Electric Company of Baltimore, to recover damages for the injury caused to the equitable plaintiffs by the death of Mr. Deane. His death is alleged to have been the result of the defendant's negligence, and the negligence charged consisted in the failure of the company's servants to protect the deceased, while he was a passenger on one of its cars, from the deadly assault made upon him by a fellow passenger. The main question in the case is whether there was sufficient evidence of negligence to justify the trial court in allowing the case to go to the jury. At the close of the evidence adduced

49 A. 924

in behalf of the plaintiff the defendant requested the court to withdraw the case from the consideration of the jury. That request was refused, and the defendant reserved an exception. The defendant then offered evidence on its part, and, when all the evidence on both sides was in, it renewed the request previously refused, and presented several other prayers for instructions to the jury. The request to withdraw the case from the jury was again refused, though the court granted several other prayers submitted by the defendant. The refusal to grant the first, third, and tenth prayers, which asked to have the case taken from the jury, the refusal to grant the defendant's eighth prayer, and the granting of the plaintiff's first prayer constitute the rulings assigned as error in the second exception. No point has been made upon the plaintiff's prayer, and we need not allude to it further than to say that it fairly submitted the law of the case to the jury. The first exception is out of the case, because the presentation of evidence by the defendant after the court had declined to take the case from the jury on the evidence of the plaintiff was a waiver of that exception. That proposition has been so recently decided, in Barabasz v. Kabat, 91 Md. 53, 46 Atl. 337, that we shall not pause to discuss it. We therefore come to inquire as to the legal sufficiency of the evidence to support the averments of the declaration.

It may not be amiss at this point to state briefly the legal principles applicable to such a case as this, though they were considered and announced not long ago in Tall v. Packet Co., 90 Md. 248, 44 Atl. 1007: "A carrier is not an insurer of the absolute safety of his passengers, yet he is bound to use reasonable care according to the nature of his contract; and, as his employment involves the safety of the lives and limbs of his passengers, the law requires the highest degree of care which is consistent with the nature of his undertaking. Railroad Co. v. State, 60 Md. 449. This, though the measure of the carrier's duty as between him and his passenger in respect to acts or omissions of the carrier and his servants towards the passenger, is not the standard by which his liability to the passenger is to be gauged or determined when intervening acts of fellow passengers or strangers directly cause the injury sustained whilst the relation of passenger and carrier is subsisting. Such an injury, due in no way to defects in the means of transportation or to the method of transporting, or to an actual trespass by an employe whilst the relation of passenger continues, and involving, therefore, no issues of negligence concerning the duty to provide safe appliances and competent and careful servants to operate them, but arising wholly from the independent misconduct of a third party,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 practice notes
  • Evans v. Cheyenne Cement, Stone & Brick Company, 673
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • March 24, 1913
    ...v. Jones, (Md.) 50 A. 423; Keener v. Baker, 93 F. 377; Ratliff v. Ratliff, 131 N.C. 425, 63 L. R. A. 963; United Rys. &c. v. State (Md.), 49 A. 923; Lowe v. Ry. Co. (Cal.), 98 P. 675; Burnham v. R. Co. (N. H.), 45 A. 564; Thompson v. Avery (Utah), 39 P. 831; Horn v. Reitler (Colo.), 25 P. 5......
  • Todd v. MTA, No. 61
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Maryland
    • February 14, 2003
    ...113 A. 732 (1921); Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co. v. Rudy, 118 Md. 42, 57, 84 A. 241, 247 (1912); United Railways & Electric Co. v. State, 93 Md. 619, 49 A. 923 (1901); Tall, at 253-54, 44 A. at 1008-09; Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co. v. Barger, 80 Md. 23, 30-31, 30 A. 560, 561 In Tall, this ......
  • Gulf, Mobile & N. R. R. Co. v. Thornberry, 33677
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • May 8, 1939
    ...193 Mass. 341, 118 A. S. R. 516; Farrier v. Colorado Springs Rapid Transit Ry. Co., 126 A. S. R. 158; United Railways, etc., Co. v. Deane, 93 Md. 619, 86 A. S. R. 453, 49 A. 923; Haver v. Central R. R. Co., 62 N. J. L. 282, 72 A. S. R. 647, 41 A. 916; Spade v. Lynn, etc., R. R. Co., 172 Mas......
  • Scott v. Watson, No. 5
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Maryland
    • July 13, 1976
    ...the carrier could have prevented the injury. See Pennsylvania R.R. Co. v. Cook, 180 Md. 633, 26 A.2d 384 (1942); United Rwys. Co. v. Deane, 93 Md. 619, 49 [359 A.2d 553] A. 923 (1901); Tall v. Steam Packet Co., 90 Md. 248, 44 A. 1007 Kline v. 1500 Massachusetts Avenue Apartment Corp., supra......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
12 cases
  • Evans v. Cheyenne Cement, Stone & Brick Company, 673
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • March 24, 1913
    ...v. Jones, (Md.) 50 A. 423; Keener v. Baker, 93 F. 377; Ratliff v. Ratliff, 131 N.C. 425, 63 L. R. A. 963; United Rys. &c. v. State (Md.), 49 A. 923; Lowe v. Ry. Co. (Cal.), 98 P. 675; Burnham v. R. Co. (N. H.), 45 A. 564; Thompson v. Avery (Utah), 39 P. 831; Horn v. Reitler (Colo.), 25 P. 5......
  • Todd v. MTA, No. 61
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Maryland
    • February 14, 2003
    ...113 A. 732 (1921); Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co. v. Rudy, 118 Md. 42, 57, 84 A. 241, 247 (1912); United Railways & Electric Co. v. State, 93 Md. 619, 49 A. 923 (1901); Tall, at 253-54, 44 A. at 1008-09; Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co. v. Barger, 80 Md. 23, 30-31, 30 A. 560, 561 In Tall, this ......
  • Gulf, Mobile & N. R. R. Co. v. Thornberry, 33677
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • May 8, 1939
    ...193 Mass. 341, 118 A. S. R. 516; Farrier v. Colorado Springs Rapid Transit Ry. Co., 126 A. S. R. 158; United Railways, etc., Co. v. Deane, 93 Md. 619, 86 A. S. R. 453, 49 A. 923; Haver v. Central R. R. Co., 62 N. J. L. 282, 72 A. S. R. 647, 41 A. 916; Spade v. Lynn, etc., R. R. Co., 172 Mas......
  • Scott v. Watson, No. 5
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Maryland
    • July 13, 1976
    ...the carrier could have prevented the injury. See Pennsylvania R.R. Co. v. Cook, 180 Md. 633, 26 A.2d 384 (1942); United Rwys. Co. v. Deane, 93 Md. 619, 49 [359 A.2d 553] A. 923 (1901); Tall v. Steam Packet Co., 90 Md. 248, 44 A. 1007 Kline v. 1500 Massachusetts Avenue Apartment Corp., supra......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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