Mason v. Mayor of Baltimore

Briscoe, J., delivered the opinion of the court. The plaintiff in this case seeks to recover damages for injuries sustained by him and to his automobile while driving his automobile over Hanover Street Bridge (a public highway), in the City of Baltimore. The declaration contains two counts. The first charges that the draw of the bridge was carelessly and negligently ⁴⁷⁷ opened and operated by the defendant, its agents and employees while the plaintiff was lawfully on the bridge, causing the automobile of the plaintiff to be badly broken and damaged, and the plaintiff was put to great expense in having the same repaired.

The second count charges that the plaintiff, while driving his automobile over the Hanover Street Bridge (a public highway), in the Oity of Baltimore, and while exercising due care on his part, the draw of the bridge was carelessly and negligently opened and operated by the defendant, its agents, and employees while the plaintiff was lawfully using the bridge, and in consequence of which and the breaking of the automobile the plaintiff was thrown violently therefrom and was seriously and permanently injured. The trial resulted in a verdict in favor of the defendant by reason of the granting of a prayer by the court, at the close of plaintiff’s testimony, to the effect that the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence and that their verdict must be for the defendant. From a judgment entered on this verdict the plaintiff has taken this appeal. The facts as they appear in the record, briefly stated, are these: On the 21st of September, 1918, the plaintiff left his home in Waverly, in the suburbs of Baltimore, to go to his farm, on the Magothy Biver, in Anne Arundel County.

He was driving a Ford automobile car, and had to cross the Patapsco Biver over what is called the Hanover Street Bridge from Baltimore City to Brooklyn. This bridge is quite long, and about the centre of the bridge is a draw of cantilever type, about 192 feet long, and the draw is raised to allow boats to pass through it. The plaintiff was driving south in his automobile, and when he got about one hundred feet of the draw he heard a tug blow a whistle west of the bridge, indicating that it wanted to pass under or through the draw of the bridge. There was a large automobile, a Ford car, and a boy on a bicycle ahead of the plaintiff’s car. ⁴⁷⁸ At the time he entered the bridge he was operating his car between seventeen and eighteen miles an hour, but made no stop nor decreased the speed, but kept going on over the bridge after he heard the whistle of the tug.

It further appears that when the plaintiff’s automobile reached a point about twenty-three feet from the north end of the draw the siren or horn on the bridge blew and the obstruction or safety gate began to rise ten or fifteen feet in front of him, and, without attempting to stop the car, he ran the front wheels of the automobile over the raised gate and went across the draw and over the balance of the bridge. The plaintiff testified that: “As soon as I found that the bridge had not raised any higher I pulled on all the gas I had and went across the balance of the bridge as fast as I could go; I was not bothering about the speed limits then; I was trying to get across the bridge; and when I got across the bridge I started to apply my foot brake and it would not work, and I reached down and grabbed my emergency brake, and it come back with no power a+ all. This was practically a brand-new car. I bought it some time about the middle of June, three months prior to this accident, and the car was in splendid condition and all right, and I just had to let it drift along then, and it drifted along a piece, and I found it started to sheer around to the right, axd it turned over crossways of the bridge — the road, I guess we would call that part — then, and the left front wheel buckled up under the car and it went over and threw me down on the bow on the left side, and this arm across this way (indicating), and the young man with me, he went out the windshield”; that he fell on his left side, and his left arm was broken.

He also testified that the day of the accident was not the first time he had been over the bridge; that he goes over the bridge on the average of two or three times a week, and that he has been over the bridge about one hundred and fifty times since the accident. ⁴⁷⁹ On cross-examination the plaintiff testified: The accident happened about 3.30 o’clock on Saturday afternoon while the witness was driving'his Ford car, going south. He was seated at the wheel on the left-hand side. His helper, Mr. Cook, was sitting on his right. He had run over the bridge many' times.

That