Annapolis & Baltimore Short Line Railroad v. Pumphrey

McSherry, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. This suit was brought to recover the value of two mules which were killed, and a cart which was destroyed, in a collision with an engine belonging to the appellant. The accident happened at a point where a private way or farm crossing intersects the track of the railroad. As the .legal sufficiency of the evidence relied on to establish the alleged negligence of the appellant is brought into question, it becomes necessary to state at somewhat greater length than would otherwise be required, the undisputed facts and circumstances adduced to prove that,negligence.

In the deed by which the right of way was conveyed to the appellant through the land now occupied by the appellee “aright of way ten feet wide * * * * over the railroad * * * is reserved for the use of Charles Pumphrey, his heirs and assigns.” John Hawkins, a witness produced on the part of the appellee, testified that he was employed by the appellee, and on the day' of the accident was hauling manure; that he started with an empty cart from Pumphrey’s house, and was ⁸⁴ driving two znules which, were harnessed to the cart; that the witness was stazzding up in the cart driving-over the railroad track at this private crossing, azzd heard no whistle blow and no bell rizig; that the first he knew of the train was the engine running into the cart and znules, and that the znules were killed, and the cart was broken up; that the land where the crossizzg was, and where the plaintiff lived, was the land of Charles Eumphrey; that the railroad at this crossing, where the team was struck, comes around a curve; that he could not see the tz-aizz approaching as he drove frozn the house, because the railroad, in that direction, was hidden from view by a bank,' but was in sight izi the other direction. It was further proved that the train consisted of an engizze azzd tender, and that no bell was rung and no whistle was sounded on approaching the crossing. It was also shown that there were then three regular passenger trains each way daily on the railz-oad; that the freight trains were very irregular and that the train which caused the damage was not on regular time. Owing to the curve in the road, the track could be seen for only thirty or forty yards when at the crossizzg.

The engine was ruzzning at the z-ate of fifteen zniles an hozzr. This is all the evidence in the record respecting the alleged negligence of the appellazzt, and when reduced to its final analysis it establishes the following-facts and nothing beyond them: (1) That a collisiozz occurred z-esulting in an injury; (2) That the place where it happened was the intersection of a railroad by a private way or farm crossing, and that no bell was rung and no whistle was sounded before the engine approached that crossing; (3) That the train which caused the injury was a delayed train, z-unning behind its-schedule time, or else an extra running on no regular schedule; (4) That there is a curve in the road-bed which prevents a person about to cross the tracks from seeizzg an ⁸⁵ approaching train until it gets within thirty or forty yards of the crossing, and likewise prevents the employés on the engine from seeing the crossing until within nearly the same distance of it; and (5) That the train was running at the rate of fifteen miles an hour. Assuming these facts to have been proved, do they, in conjunction with the inferences which may legitimately be drawn from them, warrant a jury in convicting the appellant of negligence? A mere scintilla of proof is not sufficient; there must be evidence upon which the jury might reasonably and properly conclude that there was negligence.

Baltimore & Ohio R. R. Co. vs. State, use of Savington, 71 Md., 590 ; State, use of Foy, et al. vs. Phil., Wilm. & Balto. R. R. Co., 47 Md., 87 . Now, it has been repeatedly held that no inference of negligence, in cases like this, can be drawn from the fact that an accident did happen. Frech vs. Phil., Wilm. & Balto.

R. R., 39 Md., 576 ; Phil., Wilm. & Balto. R. R. Co. vs. Stebbing, 62 Md., 515 . This circumstance must therefore be excluded in considering the question of imputed negligence. There is no statute of this State which imposes upon the appellant the duty to give signals of the approach of its trains to a private road or farm crossing.

Numerous cases in this State and elsewhere have held that a failure on the part of' a railroad company to give proper warnings of the approach of its trains to a public highway or thoroughfare crossing is an act of culpable negligence ; but we are aware of no decision which fixes upon a defendant the like consequence for omitting such warnings as to farm crossings. On the contrary it has been determined twice by this Court that no such obligation exists at all. Phil., Wilm. & Balto. R. R. Co. vs. Fronk, 67 Md., 339 ; Northern Central Railway