Washington, B. & A. Elec. Ry. Co. v. William A. Fingles, Inc.

• Decision Date: 14 January 1920
• Docket Number: 72.
• Citation: 109 A. 431,135 Md. 574
• Parties: WASHINGTON, B. & A. ELECTRIC RY. CO. v. WILLIAM A. FINGLES, Inc.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

109 A. 431

135 Md. 574

WASHINGTON, B. & A. ELECTRIC RY. CO. v. WILLIAM A. FINGLES, Inc.

No. 72.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

January 14, 1920

Appeal from Baltimore Court of Common Pleas; Robert F. Stanton Judge.

"To be officially reported."

Action by William A. Fingles, Incorporated, against the Washington Baltimore & Annapolis Electric Railway Company and Charles E Bransby. Judgment for plaintiff against the Railway Company and it appeals. Affirmed.

Argued before BOYD, C.J., and BURKE, THOMAS, PATTISON, URNER, STOCKBRIDGE, and ADKINS, JJ.

L. Vernon Miller, of Baltimore (Marbury, Gosnell & Williams, of Baltimore, on the brief), for appellant.

William Edgar Byrd, of Baltimore, for appellee.

THOMAS J.

The declaration in this case alleged that on or about the 1st of May, 1918, a Franklin five-passenger touring car belonging to the plaintiff was standing in front of the plaintiff's place of business at No. 34 South Liberty street, in the city of Baltimore, and was struck by an automobile truck of the defendant Charles E. Bransby, by reason of a collision between said truck and a passenger car of the defendant the Washington, Baltimore & Annapolis Electric Railway Company, which collision was due to the negligent operation by said defendants, their servants and agents, of said truck and said passenger car, and that by reason thereof the plaintiff's automobile was materially damaged, and the plaintiff was deprived of the use thereof in its business, "and will be deprived of such use for a considerable length of time while the same is being overhauled and repaired"; that said accident was caused by the negligence of the defendants, without any negligence or want of care on the part of the plaintiff directly contributing thereto, wherefore the plaintiff claimed $2,500 damages. The defendants pleaded the general issue plea, and the trial of the case resulted in a judgment in favor of the defendant Charles E. Bransby, and a judgment in favor of the plaintiff against the railway company for $733.33. with interest, and costs of suit, from which last-mentioned judgment the railway company has appealed.

The record contains seven exceptions to the rulings of the lower court on the evidence, one to the granting, at the close of the plaintiff's testimony, of a prayer withdrawing the case from the jury as to the defendant Charles E. Bransby, and one to the ruling of the court on the prayers at the conclusion of the testimony.

The plaintiff, William A. Fingles, Incorporated, offered evidence tending to show that it had its place of business at No. 34 South Liberty street; that the frontage of said property was about 32 feet; that at the time of the accident, on the 1st of May, 1918, the touring car of the plaintiff was standing in front of the plaintiff's place of business, about 10 feet from the northern line of the building, up against the curb line and "facing south"; that a Packard truck belonging to the plaintiff was standing about 8 or 10 feet in front of the touring car; that the frontage of the property adjoining and north of plaintiff's property was about 32 feet, and the frontage of Hanline's, the next property to the north, was about 28 feet, and that standing in front of Hanline's, with the front part of it at the southern line of that property, was the Ford barrel truck of the defendant Charles E. Bransby, which was loaded with barrels. George E. Stroebel, a witness for the plaintiff, after giving the location of the several vehicles as stated above, testified that he came out of a lunch room at No. 24 South Liberty street, and stopped in front of the lunch room, near the curb, to talk with William A. Fingles, Jr., who had just come up Liberty street, and that, while standing there, about 128 feet from plaintiff's property, and about 75 or 80 feet from the barrel truck, looking in a southerly direction, he saw the barrel truck start to pull out "in a southerly direction to get clear *** and go down Liberty street," and that at the same time he noticed two cars of the railway company, "coupled together," coming down Liberty street at the rate of about 15 miles an hour; that at the time he first noticed the railway car and saw the barrel truck turning out the front of the railway car was just opposite him; that he did not hear any signal given by the motorman of the car; that the car struck the barrel truck, and carried it down the street, dragged it into the touring car of the plaintiff, and then dragged the barrel truck and the touring car until the front of the touring car struck the Packard truck of the plaintiff, "and then they stopped"; that the barrel truck at the time it was struck by the railway car was about 45 or 50 feet from plaintiff's touring car, and that the railway car pushed the barrel truck the distance of 45 feet "into" the plaintiff's touring car, and then pushed both the barrel truck and touring car a distance of 8 or 10 feet until the latter struck the Packard truck; that the distance between the curb and the nearest rail of the railway track was about 8 or 10 feet; that he did not see the driver of the barrel truck give any signal when he pulled out from the curb, and he did not hear any signal given by the motorman of the electric car; that when he first noticed the barrel truck and the electric car the truck was pulling out into the street, and the front of the electric car was opposite the witness, who was standing about 75 or 80 feet from the barrel truck. There was also evidence tending to show that the collision occurred about 2 o'clock in the afternoon; that at that hour of the day Liberty street, at the place of the accident, is usually a crowded thoroughfare, and much used by trucks and other vehicles; that at the time of the accident the weather was clear, the street and car tracks were dry, and there was a clear track, and nothing between the electric car and barrel truck to obstruct the view of the motorman; that the touring car of the plaintiff was used in its business, and was damaged to the extent of $500, the amount plaintiff paid the Franklin Motor Car Company for repairing it; that while the touring car was being repaired, the plaintiff had to hire another car to use in its business; that it hired for that purpose a runabout from the Franklin Motor Car Company, for which it paid $70 per month, and that $70 per month was a very reasonable rate.

The defendant offered evidence tending to show that the speed at which the electric car was running just before it collided with the barrel truck was about 8 or 10 miles an hour; that when running at that rate the car could be stopped within 30 or 40 feet; that the intersecting street above the point of the accident is Redwood street, and that the motorman of the electric car rang his bell after he crossed Redwood street that as the electric car approached the place where the barrel truck was standing the driver of the truck, without giving any warning, "pulled out *** in front of the train" or "shot out from the curb," and the motorman of the electric car immediately...