Carnaggio v. Chapman

²⁸⁶ Pattison, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. This is an appeal from a judgment for the appellee in an action brought against him by tho appellant to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by him, resulting from tbe alleged negligence of the appellee in the operation of his automobile. Tbe plaintiff, Antonio Oamaggio, while crossing Baltimore street, at or near its intersection with Charles street, on July 12, 1916, was knocked down and personally injured by the car or automobile of the defendant driven by him. The plaintiff was crossing from the north to- the south side of Baltimore street, while the automobile of the defendant was going west on Baltimore street.

The testimony of the plaintiff as to the happening of the accident is exceedingly meager, and we will state it as it appears in the record. It is as follows: “That the accident happened at Charles and Baltimore streets; to the best of his recollection at between three and four o’clock. That he was about to cross tbe street; had his eyes open; saw an automobile. That he stepped over in order to wait for this automobile to go by.

Then an automobile came from the rear of this one and it struck him. That the machines were going west; that he had not passed Baltimore street, that he had made only about two or three steps; that be was watching the man in the front machine all right; and he was all right, but all at once, unexpectedly, the other machine came from the back of the one in order to pass this and struck him. That the first machine passed him, the second machine did not whistle, or sound any hell, but just struck him; that it tried to pass the first machine and struck him.” There was no other witness who testified for the plaintiff as to the happening of the accident. The defendant testified that he was driving a runabout automobile on B;altimore street, going west.

He stopped when he reached Charles street and waited until signalled by the semaphore in charge of the officer to proceed. He ²⁸⁷ crossed Charles street about six or seven miles an hour. There was no machine in front of him on the right-hand side of the street 'between Charles and Hanover streets. After passing Charles street he pulled out to the right side of the street.

He was going slowly and pulled to the right so that if anyone wanted to pass him they could do. so. A machine did pass him going west on Baltimore street between fifty and seventy-five feet west of Charles street. He saw it pass him, but did not pay mucb attention to it. lie did not take his eyes off the street and was going at that time about eight or ten miles an hour. The other car was going probably fifteen or eighteen miles an hour when it passed him, and was out in the car tracks.

He was then asked, did yon see the plaintiff in this case before the happening of the accident? A. He was not out in the street. Q. Did yon see where he came from? A. This man stepped off the curb, that is the only way I can figure it; I just had a glimpse of him.

He stepped off the footway and the minute he did I put my brake on and stopped the car.” He then testified that the left-hand front wheel was on the man when he stopped. Someone said, “back, back, your front, wheel is on the man’s leg.” “I stopped that quick.” He further said, “that he did not try to pass or go around any other machine there on Baltimore street.” Hpon cross-examination, he stated that when he arrived at the east side of Charles street, there was not anyone ahead of him, that he was straddling the north track of Baltimore street, or he may have been between the tracks. When signalled he went across Charles street and staved on the right side. After crossing Charles street he drove close to the curb, probably a foot and a half from the curb.

When the accident occurred he got out, put the man in the machine and rushed him to the hospital. Patrick Leland, police officer stationed at the intersection of Charles and Baltimore streets, testified that he recalled the occasion of the accident. He saw the defendant’s ma ²⁸⁸ chine and another going west on Baltimore street. They stopped east of Charles street and awaited the signal for east and west.

When it was given they both started. The defendant was on the inside or next to the north curb of Baltimore street when the other man tried to pass him, and they both came just together like that, on the centre of the street, at the centre of Charles street. There were both machines together. What called my attention to it was that I was watching to see if there was any violation of the law because the Other machine was on the west-bound track, and before the accident, about a second before the accident happened, this machine passed Chapman, say about a yard on the west side of Baltimore street; that he assumed just a second after that machine