Keech v. Baltimore & Washington Rail Road

Barton, J., delivered the opinion of this court: The several Acts of Assembly, regulating the liability of railroad companies in this State, for stock killed or injured by their trains, have bien before this court on former occasions, when considerations of public policy and private right were duly weighed and determined. We see no reason for disturbing what was then deliberately settled. In the case of The Balt. & Ohio R. R. Co. vs. Lamborn, 12 Md. Rep., 257 , we adverted to the well settled principle of the common law, that a plaintiff is not entitled to recover for injuries to which his own fault or negligence has direedy contributed, and we said that this rule applies as well to suits against railroad companies as private individuals, and is not abrogated by the Acts of 1838, ch. 244, and 1846, ch. 346. To adopt the construction of these Acts, contended for by the appellant, would entitle a party to recover damages for stock killed by a railroad train, although it should be shown that the accident resulted from the grossest carelessness on his part, or that he voluntarily turned them loose upon the railroad track when a train was passing.

We cannot impute such intention to the Legislature, nor can it be found in any reasonable construction of the Acts of Assembly. It is a cardinal rule of interpretation, that “Statutes are to be construed in reference to the principles of the common law, for it is not to be presumed that the Legislature intended to make any innovation upon the common law, further than the case absolutely required. The law rather infers that the Act did not intend to make any alteration, other than what is sped ⁴⁶ fied, and besides what has been plainly pronounced.’ ’ Dwarris, 695. See, also, 1 Kent's Com., 464, m., (7th Ed.) Hooper vs. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, 12 Md. Rep., 475 .

Guided by this rule of interpretation, we can give no other construction to these Acts of Assembly than that which we have heretofore declared. They leave the question of negli* gence, on the part of the plaintiff, where it was at the common law, and do not confer upon a party, who is himself a wrong-doer, the right to obtain redress for the consequences of his own negligence or misconduct. By the common law, in order to maintain ah action like the present, it was incumbent on the plaintiff to prove that the damage complained of resulted from the fault or negligence ft the defendant, or its agents. This has been changed by the Acts of Assembly.

They cast the onus of proof on the defendant. When stock is killed by a railroad train, the law imputes negligence to the agents of the company, and in order to exempt itself from liability, it must be shown that the damage complained of was “the result of unavoidable accident.” In construing these words of the Act, we will remark, that we do not understand the Legislature as intending to interfere with the time-tables of the company, or to limit the rate of speed for the trains. While the Act leaves to the company the full exercise of its rights in this respect, it imposes upon them the duty of exercising the highest degree of care and caution. These principles were announced in Lamborn’s case, in which this court said, the question of the fault or negligence of the plaintiff, was a subject proper to be passed upon by the jury.

As some erroneous impressions appear to have grown out of the decision of that case, it may not be amiss to advert to some of its facts, which distinguish it from the case now under consideration. The record disclosed that Lamborn was the owner of land adjoining the railroad, that the horse was standing on the line of the road, near the track, and as the cars approached, he ran upon the track, and was overtaken and killed by the locomotive. No explanation was given of ⁴⁷ the circumstance, or any evidence to show that the horse was in charge of any one, or to relieve the plaintiff from the imputation of negligence, which might he presumed from the