Burns v. Mayor of Baltimore

Stockbribge, J., delivered the opinion of the court. On the 18th of September, 1919, the plaintiff, who is the appellant in this case, had a fall on Holbrook Street, in the City of Baltimore. The nature and extent of the injuries occasioned thereby and which are claimed to have been a dislocation of the coccyx, were first examined by means of an ⁵⁸³ X-ray on the 27th of February, 1920, and that examination did not disclose injuries of the character claimed to have resulted from the accident of the September previous. The circumstances under which the plaintiff fell were as follows: She lived at Xo. 1302 Holbrook Street, in ‘the eastern part of the City of Baltimore, and had been living- there for about three months.

The street itself was very narrow, and the footways for pedestrians upon either side were of brick. On the morning of the day when the accident occurred, if had rained but had cleared off, though the sidewalk had not entirely dried. On the opposite side of Holbrook Street, at Xo>. 1827, lived Mrs. Mary Wyman, the aunt of the plaintiff, and Mrs. Wyman, desiring to re-enter her own home called across the street to Mrs. Leonora, Burns, the plaintiff, to let her have the key. Mrs. Burns got the key and started across the street toward Mrs. Wyman.

There was a hole in the sidewalk in front of the house in which Mrs. Callahan was living at Xo. 1313 and, according to the plaintiff’s evidence, her eyes were directed toward Mrs. Wyman to whom she was carrying the key. The hole referred to consisted in a number of the bricks of the sidewalk having become broken or misplaced, and upon these Mrs. Burns stumbled and fell.. The injury is claimed to have been the result of this fall The defect in the sidewalk had existed for1 a considerable length of time-, three months or more, and the suit is to1 recover from the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore because of its negligence in allowing this condition of the sidewalk to exist upon a public thoroughfare of the city. There is no material contradiction in the evidence.

It appears that the plaintiff in the ease had been travelling up and down Holbrook Street for the space of aho-ut three months, had seen this hole frequently, and therefor© had knowledge of its existence. In this condition of facts, and the knowledge of the plaintiff, the jury was instructed by the Judge of the Baltimore City Court that the plaintiff had been guilty of contributory negligence, so as to preclude any recovery, and that their verdict must he for the defendant, the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore. ⁵⁸⁴ There were seven, bills of