Duvall v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad

Robinson, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. We agree with the Court below that there is no evidence in this case from which the jury could fairly and reasonably find negligence on the part of the defendant company. Its freight train was standing on the track at Mount Airy Station, near a public crossing, waiting for telegraphic orders to move. The plaintiff, on horseback, rode up to the crossing, saw the engine on the track, and saw the flagman standing by the side of the crossing, with his flag furled, thus indicating there was no danger to be apprehended from the movement of trains to persons desiring'to cross the track; and while the plaintiff was in the act of crossing the track, there was a sudden escape of steam from an automatic safety valve attached to the engine, in consequence of which her horse was frightened, and she was thrown on the ground and injured.

The defendant’s engines are gauged to carry a certain pressure of steam before they are put on the road, and when the pressure reaches this point the steam escapes through the safety valve, acting automatically, and neither the fireman nor engineer has any control over it. ⁵¹⁹ This, in short, is the plaintiff's case, and if so, there is no evidence, it seems to us, from which negligence can fairly he imputed to the defendant. Its train was lawfully on its track, — this cannot he disputed, — and the noise which frightened the plaintiff’s horse was caused by the escape of steam through an automatic valve, — an attachment which it had the right to use in operating its engine. But then it is said,- the plaintiff had the right to cross the defendant’s track. This is true, and the case then is one in which two parties have equal rights, in the exercise of which, injury may result to one of them, with or without liability, according to the conduct of each.

It was, no doubt, the duty of the defendant, in the management of its train and engine, to exercise reasonable care and prudence to avoid injury to the plaintiff and to others crossing its track. But to hold -the defendant liable, there must be some evidence of negligence. Now, it was argued there was negligence in permitting the pressure of steam to reach a point at which it escapes through the safety valve, while the train was standing on its track near a public crossing; but to this we cannot agree. Here was an engine attached to twenty-eight freight cars, going up a high grade, requiring a full pressure of steam.

It had reached the station,waiting to move at a moment’s notice. To have slackened the fire, (and this was the only way by which the pressure could have been reduced,) would have been to deprive the engine of a pressure of steam absolutely necessary to its movements. The pressure of steam, under such circumstances, must be left