Charles v. Mayor of Baltimore

Stockbridge, J., delivered the opinion of the court. The 16th of January, 1920, wasi particularly stormy and severe. It snowed in the morning1 and this was followed by rain and sleet. Mrs. Thomasi C. Charles was the owner of a Buick coupe.

Her husband was a cigar salesman for a New York factory, his territory extending from Baltimore southward. According to the declaration filed in this case on the: morning of the day named the automobile, “operated by her' husband at her direction and at her request,” went from Washington, where she and her husband were living, to Camp Humphries and later in the day Mr. Charles ran the machine to Baltimore, entering the city over Edmondson Avenue, his purpose being to go to Walbrook. When he reached Poplar Grove Avenue on Edmondson Avenue he turned across: Poplar Grove Avenue to proceed to his destination. The storm of the day had caused a congealing of the rain and sleet upon the wind shield of the plaintiff’s machine.

It. was. between a quarter after and half past seven when Mr. Charles, driving the machine, turned into Poplar Grove Avenue to proceed north to Walbrook. The night was one on which the range: of vision was limited, making it difficult to distinguish objects along the way. ⁵²⁵ On Poplar Grove Avenue, where that avenue crosses the Western Maryland Railroad, there is a bridge which, in addition to the footways, has two drive ways of rather greater’ than the usual width, and separating the driveway from the foot walk are walls of concrete. In the center of the bridge there is a solid division, made apparently of concrete, with a, large water main resting upon the summit of this central partition. The bridg;e is lighted by six are lights, two of which are placed at the ends of each of the side enclosures and are white lights.

Upon the central partition is one red light. It is undisputed that at the time Mr. Charles approached this bridge he was running at a speed of not less than 20 miles per hour and that all of the lights were out. Keeping his machine as nearly as possible in the centre of Poplar Grove Avenue he failed to observe the bridge, although he wiaa reasonably familiar with its existence from having repeatedly crossed it on foot. On this occasion, moving at the speed mentioned on a particularly dark evening, he saw no lights and hisi machine crashed into the central wall.

Fortunately lie suffered no personal injury, but the1 machine was quite badly wrecked, the repair bill amounting to between $700' and $800. It is to1 recover for tbisi that the present suit was brought ag'ainst the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore. There are four bills of exception contained in the record, of which the last relates to' the ruling of the trial court upon the prayers', the other three have reference to rulings made upon the testimony. The first is to- the sustaining an objection to a question asked of the police officer who had patrolled the heat for seven and a half years, as to1 the number of accidents which had occurred at this same place.

This action of the court was manifestly correct, there not having been any testimony given to show that the weather conditions which prevailed on the night of the 16th of January were the same as those at the time of other accidents which might have oocurred at the same place. The second bill of exceptions came upon the court’s sustaining an objection, to a question put to the same witness as to whether an accident had occurred, at ⁵²⁶ the other end of the same bridge on the same night. This might, under certain aspects, have constituted error, hut.in the view which this Court takes of the' case, if error it was, it was an immaterial error which could in nowise have affected the result. The third exception was to a question to the same witness as to whether1 or not an accident had occurred at the south end of the bridge on nights other than this particular night.

The objection to this was sustained and is fully covered by what has already been said with regard to the first exception. One or two additional facts are proper to he mentioned. There is no dispute that the lights on the bridge on this particular' night, as Mr. Charles approached the northern end of the bridge, were all of them out, and it is testified to without contradiction that the leaving of the bridge in darkness was due to the short circuiting of the electric current which supplied these lights. That short circuit is fully explained by the witness Charles.

F. Mosher, as having been caused by the intense cold weather bursting the conduit underneath the bridge,