Mayor of Baltimore v. Bassett

Constable, L, delivered the opinion of the Court. The appellee recovered a judgment against the appellant as a result of personal injuries suffered by her through the alleged negligence of the appellant in permitting one of its thoroughfares to be, and remain for a long time, in an unsafe and dangerous condition. At the trial below, the appellant offered three prayers, each seeking to withdraw the case from the consideration of the jury; two upon the ground that there was no legally sufficient evidence to entitle the plaintiff to recover, and one for the reason that the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negli-' genee. It is only upon the theory that the Court committed error in refusing one or all of these prayers that this appeal is prosecuted. ⁴²⁹ This Court and others have so often and so consistently declared the rule of law1 as to when cases should be withdrawn from the consideration of the jury for want of legal evidence, that it is only necessary to repeat the rule, and that is, if there be any evidence from which a rational conclusion may he drawn as opposed to the theory of the prayer, the weight and value of such evidence should he left for the consideration of the jury: and before such a prayer can he granted, the Court must assume the truth of all the evidence before the jury, tending to1 sustain the claim or defense, as the case may be; and of all inferences of fact fairly dedueiblo from it.

Jones v. Jones, 45 Md. 144 ; Balto. Elevator Co. v. Neal, 65 Md. 459 ; Moyer v. Justis, 112 Md. 220 ; Balto. v. Leonard, 129 Md. 621 . The duty of a municipality to keep its public streets and highways in a reasonably safe and proper condition for public travel, is too well settled in this State; by numerous and recent decisions to admit of any doubt; and if the municipality negligently fails to do so, and persons acting without negligence upon their part are injured, because of such negligence of the City, the municipality is liable in damages. Balto. v. Marriott, 9 Md. 160 ; Hagerstown v. Klotz, 93 Md. 437 ; Keen v. Havre de Grace, Ibid. 34; Magaha v. Hagerstown, 95 Md. 70 ; Annapolis v. Stallings, 125 Md. 346 ; Delmar v. Venables, Ibid. 476; Gutowski v. Balto., 127 Md. 502 ; Burke v. Balto., Ibid. 560; Hagerstown v. Crowl, 128 Md. 556 ; Biggs v. Balto. 129 Md. 686 .

The testimony tends to show that the plaintiff, a woman of seventy-five years of age, attempted to. board a street car at the southwest comer of North and Moreland avenues, in Baltimore City, during the afternoon of March 5th, 1917. She had been walking up Moreland avenue, and at the corner of that avenue and North avenue, left the curb of the pavement and hailed a car. It had been raining the morning of, and the night before, the day of the accident. From the curb to the car line is a distance of fifteen or twenty feet. ⁴³⁰ And. in a direct line from the corner1 to the entrance of a car standing to* take on passengers, and about midway between the curb and the car, was a hole in the concrete or macadam street bed,