Baltimore & Potomac Railroad v. Jean

Page, -J., delivered the opinion of the Court. This is an action to recover-for injuries received by the appellee, while a passenger on the train of the appellant. The ⁵⁴⁷ appeal is from the rulings of the lower Court upon the prayers, of which the Court granted the two offered by the appellee, and the fourth, seventh and eighth of the appellant; and refused its first, second, third, fifth and sixth. By the first, second and third prayers of the appellant, the following questions are raised; 1st.

Is there any evidence of negligence on the part of the appellant, 2nd. Did such negligence cause the injuries complained of, and 3rd, was the appellee guilty of contributory negligence. These three prayers respectively are to the effect that there is no evidence in the case, sufficient to legally establish any of these matters; and therefore the verdict of the jury should be for the appellant. First, is there any evidence legally sufficient of negligence on the part of the appellant?

The appellee was a passenger on the train of the appellant, on his way from Washington to Baltimore. He proposed to leave the train at Pennsylvania avenue, a station, situated at an opening in the tunnel. This opening is three hundred and thirty-two feet long. The station platform is at the bottom of a deep cut and runs the entire length of the opening.

The train consisted of a locomotive, a baggage car, a sn.oker and two ladies coaches in the rear. The evidence of the manner in which the accident happened, relied on by the appellee to sustain his view of the case, may be briefly stated as follows. As the train approached the station, the conductor came in the smoking car, where the appellee was seated, and cried out “all out for Pennsylvania Avenue station.” His manner was hurried—“he had a hustle on.” He passed through the car after giving this warning twice, and went out of the rear of the car. The appellee then rose and passed down the aisle.

The speed of the car was then decreasing, and it was soon difficult to determine whether it had stopped or not. Just as the conductor closed the door of the ladies car, whither he had gone, the appellee stepped through the door of the smoking car. The conductor then left the platform of the ladies car and went down the steps to the bottom step, and leaned his • body out and looked ahead. The appellee testified, “just at that time ⁵⁴⁸ I started from the platform having satisfied myself that the car had stopped, and when I got to the bottom step or before I got to the bottom step and was just going to step from the step, next to the bottom step, the conductor sprang up the other side, of the ladies car,” and I had arrived so far upon the lower step, having this hand hold of the railing or bar— and I turned and I looked over my shoulder to see what he was going to do and I saw him” taking hold of the knob of the door of the ladies car, and “I supposed he was going to let the ladies alight”—“and then I looked this way and found myself confronted by utter darkness, and knew in a flash I was in the tunnel.” Then there came a surge and the appellee lost his footing and fell.

Here then is a case, if the jury found the facts just stated, where the position in which the appellee found himself may have been due to the fact that the conductor prematurely directed the passengers to leave the car. The words “All out for Pennsylvania Avenue Station,” amounted to a direction to leave the- car, or at least the appellee may reasonably have so regarded it. Anderson's case, 72 Md. 528 . The appellant was bound to use the highest degree of care which was consistent with the nature of its undertaking.

B. & O. R. R. v. Hauer, 60 Md. 462 . The appellee had a right to assume that “the defendant would not expose him to any danger, which, by the exercise of due care could be avoided,” Ibid. ' So that when the conductor cried out “All out,” &c., in such a manner as was calculated to mislead the appellee, it was guilty of negligence. And if the jury found, as there was evidence for them so to do if they saw-fit, that the train came to .a stand still, before the platform was reached, the negligence would be more glaring. There was much evidence contradictory of many of the facts of the case as we have stated them, but “mere contradiction can never justify the Court in finding a legal insufficiency of evidence.” Baker v. Maryland Coal Co., 84 Md. 29 .

Was the appellee guilty as matter of law of contributory negligence? The appellee’s prayer, granted by the Court, requires the jury to find, as one of the conditions of